And ya missed all the salient bits • exaggerated allegations, imprecise legal theories and persistently unaddressed problems • This case is still an embarrassment of prosecutorial ethics and apparent selective prosecution. • This case should serve as a cautionary tale about broader prosecutorial abuses in America • Eight years after the alleged crime itself, it is reasonable to ask if this is more about Manhattan politics than New York law • a broad “election interference” theory is unprecedented, • they could not cite a single judicial interpretation of this particular statute supporting their use of the statute • this novel attempt is a sign of overreach. • Manhattan D.A. is now pushing untested legal interpretations and applications. • it is unclear how this case would even fulfill the misdemeanor requirement of “intent to defraud” without the federal crime • Calling it “election fraud” is a legal and strategic mistake • None of the relevant state or federal statutes refer to filing violations as fraud. • Matthew Colangelo still evaded specifics about what was illegal about influencing an election, • weak theory of “election interference,” • is a novel interpretation with many significant legal problems • Manhattan D.A. has made a historic mistake.
