Just a few thoughts on the delay today in the Manhattan DA case. The one concrete meaningful snippet we seem to have is that the delay was ordered up by Bragg and just communicated to the grand jury. That suggests that it's not occasion to buy any kind of hesitancy or curiosity
From the grand jury. That in turn suggests that there's no strong evidence that a true bill is less likely than it was. So what was the DAs office reasoning?Fundamentally, we can't tell, but I think we shouldn't discount the possibility that Bragg just felt he needed another day
To assess a decision that could only be made when the grand jury is in session. (Also, of course, all kinds of even more pedestrian possibilities, like somebody was sick.) It could be to shore up the evidence in the grand jury, but it strikes me equally likely that it's connected
to the trial. Perhaps there's a witness that Bragg's team really wants to lock in on a certain point. (a wild possibility here would be to call Allen Weisselberg, who remember Cohen testifies is ordered along with him to do the financial details of the hush money payout.).
Or they want to make a solid record of having informed the grand jury of certain evidence for a defense that they anticipate Trump's making down the line. Or as I say, something even more pedestrian. I think the main point however is that it is less likely that Bragg is
having fundamental doubts or second guesses about seeking the indictment. We are very very far down the line and there have been so many concrete signs. To decide now not to bring the case would be like throwing into reverse a train going 200 miles an hour.
@harrylitman Just want to say thanks for giving us your expertise and opinions during these crazy investigations! You are definitely one of the best I love hearing from. Much appreciated.
@harrylitman HL: In People v. Lancaster, 69 N.Y.2d 20 (N.Y. 1986), NY’s highest court distinguished its earlier ruling in People v Valles as to what defenses the prosecutor needs to instruct the grand jury.