Thread by @DanielRAlonso

THREAD answering some questions about the #ManhattanDA race and recent controversy and sniping over candidate fundraising and suggestions in yesterday's @nytimes that @AlvinBraggNYC & @TaliFarhadian had created issues that Trump could exploit in any future prosecution.

https://twitter.com/MomUws/status/1400492337185316872

2/ I've already analyzed the issue of Weinstein's interview for a judgeship with the White House counsel's office during Trump's first year in office and dismissed it as a non-issue.

https://twitter.com/DanielRAlonso/status/1400194304887427077?s=20

3/ Worth noting that two law professors, @CBHessick and @jedshug agreed in excellent threads yesterday. Shugerman disclosed that he supports Weinstein's candidacy but Hessick (thread above) is not supporting anyone (nor am I, though I've expressed views).

https://twitter.com/jedshug/status/1400129416672559108?s=20

4/ Re Bragg & his claim that he's "sued Trump more than a hundred times,” IMO they don't pose an ethical problem or a disqualification problem. Trump will of course say whatever he wants, but these statements are not even as strong as @TishJames, & hers don't rise to that level.

5/This of course presumes (as I do) Bragg will in fact handle it impartially & w/o outside influences. Caveat: I don't know what he's said in private, including at the fundraiser w @danielsgoldman mentioned in the article, where he said he'd discuss Trump

https://twitter.com/AlvinBraggNYC/status/1386412505765982210?s=20

6/But assuming just the public statements, he's perhaps given Trump a talking point, but done nothing unethical or requiring recusal. One interesting issue not analyzed in Times article is the nature of the "more than a hundred" lawsuits Bragg often touts. nytimes.com/2021/06/02/nyr…

7/ This 2017 article focuses on these actions by former AG Schneiderman (doesn't mention Bragg). It also suggests the tally of "lawsuits" might've included a "flurry of amicus briefs & formal letters." Not sure if Bragg counts those, but they're not suits.
nytimes.com/2017/12/26/nyr…

8/ I believe most of these lawsuits & other actions were claims that the federal administration exceeded its rulemaking authority, which is a common thing for AG's to do against federal administrations. Unlike the Trump Foundation case, it's not really going after Trump per se.

9/ I'll also add that as a former #2 myself, it always makes me a little uncomfortable the way Bragg talks about the achievements of the AG's office during the time he was a supervisor there. Then again, I'm not running for office, so it may just be my hangup.

10/ Last topic: the question about whether a District Attorney should recuse from a case where a campaign donor is investigated or prosecuted. This apparently came up at a debate on May 20 at NY County Lawyers Assn. law360.com/articles/13764…

11/ I didn't see it, but apparently @TaliFarhadian was the only candidate who did not commit to recusing herself "from cases involving campaign donors." This "drew anger" from @elizaorlins, who asked voters to "pay very close attention" to Weinstein's answer.

12/ Well, @TaliFarhadian, formerly the General Counsel at a major DA's office, was the only one that got the right answer. You don't recuse & it doesn't require your disqualification unless the relationship is so close that there's *actual* prejudice or a huge risk of prejudice.

13/This should be obvious by thinking about it: the people elect their DA; if DA is disqualified, the court must appoint a "Special DA" under NY law, & that's either a neighboring DA or lawyer in the county. That's hugely disruptive & deprives the public of constitutional officer

14/ What about the "appearance of impropriety"? It's not enough under the law to require disqualification. There must be "actual prejudice or so substantial a risk thereof as could not be ignored."

15/ OK, but what if a DA wants to do so *voluntarily*? Isn't that really what @elizaorlins (& @LizCrotty2021 @LucyLangNYC @AlvinBraggNYC @AMDanQuart @TahanieNYC @DianaJFlorence) are saying? Yes, they can, but that's not the practice that is followed today, and it's not wise.

16/ In 2018, following concern over DA Vance's contributions from defense lawyers & at Vance's request, @ColumbiaCAPI (led by @JenGRodgers) published a groundbreaking report, "Raising the Bar," w recommendations on ethical practice re DAs & contributions. web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/…

17/ I won't list all the recommendations, but w respect to donations from defendants or targets they did *not* say DAs should recuse. Far from it - they should ban such donations, & if they come in anyway, *return* or *segregate* the donation.

18/ This is crucially important: if the rule were they should *recuse*, then people could ensure they won't be prosecuted by *this DA* just by contributing to his/her campaign.

19/ Much better to return the money or, if it's someone already under investigation & you don't want to alert them to that fact, Columbia's ethics experts say: "segregate the contribution while the investigation is pending in an account separate from the main campaign account."

20/ The report didn't reinvent the wheel: it's essentially what we were already doing at @ManhattanDA when I was Chief ADA. In fact, I implemented the procedure (w the DA's approval) based on a conversation I had w the upper echelons of the NY Attorney General's office.

21/ Now, Vance did occasionally recuse himself based on personal relationships or actual conflicts, just as we would expect Bragg to recuse if his campaign treasurer were investigated, or Weinstein her husband. But not *just* because you donated.

end/ So, @TaliFarhadian is the only 1 that got the right answer to the question. If the others disagree, we should all wait to see who gets elected-if we don't like them (or they us), we should just send their campaign a check, and never have to worry about them investigating us.

I want to add one thing: I think it's truly icky (technical term!) that DAs have to go around hat in hand asking for money. It's fundamentally at odds with the role of the prosecutor, and I hope we can one day do away with it, or at least rein it in.