Thread by @jedshug

This is a non-story on the @ManhattanDA race on both @TaliFarhadian & @AlvinBraggNYC.
There is zero conflict of interest here.
Being interviewed for a federal judgeship indicates no political favor or grudge. To the contrary, this story shows Tali's merit & independence. 1/

https://twitter.com/cliffordlevy/status/1400049267075596290

2/ @nytimes reports HLS Prof @NoahRFeldman recommended @TaliFarhadian to the Trump administration on his own initiative - b/c she is extraordinarily qualified to be a judge.
Remarkably enough, Trump staffers actually interviewed her, a progressive Obama DOJ veteran!

3/ Tali had no contacts with Trump world, but was so impressive that they interviewed anyway.
She bravely told the Trump staff things they didn't want to hear, and the interview "became heated during a disagreement over constitutional law."
And her candidacy ended.
Good for her.

4/ It is a problem that Americans have chosen to elect prosecutors, creating lots of appearances of political bias.
Some of those biases are very real & destructive, and I'm writing a book about that.
But this story on Farhadian & Bragg is neither smoke nor fire.

5/ This @nytimes story doesn't provide the context of the history and practice of Senate confirmation of judges. For a federal judgeship in NY, the NY Senators (both Democrats) would have extra pull. See "blue slip" (though it has changed recently, still has a political effect).

6/ I respect these 3 journalists, but frankly, it is disappointing that @Jonesieman, @BenWeiserNYT and @maggieNYT included none of this "blue slip" tradition of Senate politics/bipartisan consultation, nor the possibility of the Dems winning the Senate in 2018.
Very unfair.

7/ For what it's worth, I am hearing agreement from many law professors and legal experts that this @nytimes piece was not a good piece of journalism.
It was simplistic, and tries to imply "scandal" trafficking on a public misperception of lower-court judicial politics.

8/ In full disclosure, I've known Tali for 25 years, we're friends, and I support her candidacy.
I am calling out this @nytimes story as unfair to both her and her main opponent @AlvinBraggNYC.
It's disappointingly thin & shallow journalism, unfair to both candidates.

9/ I want to clarify that my problem is with the misleading framing and deliberate (yes, deliberate) lack of context about judicial politics in the article, and burying the legal issue in the 31st and 32d paragraphs.

10/ The subhed and intro grafs focus on how Trump could exploit these 2 stories as accusations of bias against Bragg and Weinstein. Subbed:
“Both had dealings with President Donald J. Trump’s administration that Mr. Trump could try to use against them."
“Weaponize them”
Ok, how?

11/ The implication is that the attack of bias has some validity, perhaps legal merit... quoting Trump on Mueller as "totally coflicted”
That Bragg will face “accusations of bias.”
The lay reader is obviously worried by now: Will Trump use this to his legal advantage?
Misleading.

13/ These journalists built up anxiety for 30 paragraphs, did not provide appropriate political context about Bragg or Farhadian, and waited until the very end to address the legal problems they had implied...
in their 31st paragraph.
That's irresponsible.
FIN