You'd take a City council member bilking her constituents for their money personally - by being hysterical about CriMe and then suggesting they pay for her own companies self-defense classes? Really? You think that's morally better?

Good thing the justice system isn't supposed to be dictated by the feelings of people who have a very curated picture of a case from a podcast or TV show.

All state authorities hate transparency.

And is everyone aware that the NYC Department of Design and Construction is trying to sneakily become an Authority right now and have that shoved into the budget? Because somehow that'll make construction cheaper and faster when ALL evidence points to the contrary when we sell city agencies to the state?

It was not important to the prosecution. That doesn't mean it's not important to the defense. Given the track record of prosecutors withholding evidence from the defense, I would never trust the word of a prosecutor on what is relevant or not.

>you think that's fair

Yes. Because defendants have a right to see evidence in a case against them. The courts shouldn't be a trial mill. These are people's lives we are judging. And I certainly don't think we should trust a prosecutor to judge what evidence is valuable or not to the defense.

>Brooklyn Councilwoman Inna Vernikov recently used her government email account to solicit business for a self-defense company she has been involved with, according to a Daily News review of public records.

>The first-term Republican lawmaker’s promotion of the nonprofit company, Legion Alpha, Inc., drew a stern rebuke from Richard Briffault, a former chairman of the city Conflicts of Interest Board, who said her use of a government email to boost the firm ran afoul of local government ethics law.

>“That’s a clear violation of conflict rules,” Briffault said, pointing to a section of the City Charter that he noted prohibits her from using “public resources for a financial gain of a firm with which she is associated.

If a system required defendants to have one hand tied behind their backs for everything to work properly, it was always a broken justice system.

Discovery laws are just. The issue is funding the court system. We need to pump way more $$ for staffing to handle the work they always should have been doing

It's not unrelated because it's from the same Siena poll and other news outlets have reported both of these statistics together - but the Post chose to ignore that.

Who gets to decide what is relevant? And why should it be the prosecution? Everyone deserves to see EVERY DETAIL in a case against them.

France is #6 in the list of countries with the most millionaires.

But, sure, they're a third world country now because all the millionaires are gone because they're asked to pay their fair share.

Like when a right wing news outlet picks and chooses which poll results to write about from the exact same poll, because one results doesn't meld with their world views?

I totally agree. Discovery needs to be kept, but it was a massive oversight to not provide the staffing and funding to make it feasible. Our court system has always been understaffed and underfunded and that alone has caused most of the delays and backlogs in the system. It's a shame.

They should get the staff and funds. And keep discovery regardless because it's the right thing to do.

Poll: New Yorkers back bail changes, millionaires tax

It's literally the same poll. U mad?

What do you think gaslighting means? This article is referencing a single poll. The same poll also indicated a majority of voters support a larger tax in millionaires. They're cherry picking the information they want.

No. Discovery is the correct, legal and ETHICAL thing to do. If it's an issue, fund the courts and more staff. Everyone on trial is entitled to ALL of the evidence against them. Period

"Grieving families" don't take priority over a fair trial. That could be your or any one of us railroaded at trial with an immoral prosecutor withholding evidence.

They also support a larger tax in millionaires but you won't see the Post bragging about that.

So how much do you think it costs to demolish and rebuild a coastal park in Manhattan? I'd love to hear how you've scoped this out.

Good for them. Anyone in customer service has wanted to do this at work at least once.

You are suggesting a park is being demolished and rebuilt with a flood wall not because climate change is real but because it's a grand conspiracy of government officials making up fake projects to give money to construction companies.

But, sure, I am in a trance.

>"As part of a major $221 million climate resilience plan, the Battery Park City Authority will tear down Wagner Park, reconstruct it with new flood-prevention features and raise it by 10 feet."

No. You are wrong.

No, it's not being fixed by just a wall. The entire park is being raised. The entire project is for future generations to enjoy Lower Manhattan, but unfortunately entitled adults are far more concerned with a minor inconvenience for the next 5 years than actually dealing with climate change. And spare us the phony sob story about dead plants and animals. What do you think happens to them when the next big storm or flood comes?! To fight this hard to preserve something already doomed just for the short term convenience of old people is astounding.

It could not have just been resolved with a concrete wall along the water. Unless you and the other Manhattan NIMBYs would be happy with a 10 foot concrete barrier blocking the water view you feel so entitled to. I suspect you wouldn't be happy with that.

The funniest thing to me about the NIMBY response to the East Side Coastal Resiliency is this idea that we need to give a shit about trees that will be replanted. The trees will be DESTROYED by storm surge without the flood wall. These aren't "historical" trees in these parks. Wagner is only 30 years old. Almost all of the waterfront in lower Manhattan is man made, not natural habitat. We are 30 years past the stage of environmentalism where trees can save us. Climate change is already here.

>passed on it.

He literally just spent more time gathering evidence and making a stronger case. And you're mad at it? K.

One thing I'll never understand is the MTAs insistence that we need to get back to where we were in 2019. Subways we're a fucking nightmare. Cars were packed, trains were insanely delayed by people packing in. I never want to go back to that. It is a terrible way to run a transit system. The goal shouldn't be sardining as many people as possible...