Running Unopposed, Vance Is Suddenly on the Defensive

NYT, you should inquire with the DA why he chose to charge the Union Square punch bomber with "manslaughter" when a more appropriate charge would have been depraved indifference murder in the second degree on these facts: The killer 1. announced that he would "punch the next white man I see"; 2. punched a random sixty-two year old passerby so hard he was knocked off his beet, cracking open his head on the hard concrete (he was brain DOA at Bellevue); and, 3. attacked two other passersby who came to the dead/dying man's aid, knocking one of them unconscious. It appears that "manslaughter as a hate crime" was Vance's top count. It was NOT a plea deal; the killer went to trial and was convicted. He will be out after just 25 years, at age 62 or so (younger, if he earns good time), instead of the life term that second-degree murder would have brought. This incident occurred in 2015 during the Eric Garner / Black Lives Matter protests, so it is a reasonable hypothesis that Vance's concerns with ( or intimidation by?) racial politics came into play in Vance's charging of the killer, who had a long, violent, history and who was off his medicine for schizophrenia (but who was, somehow, rational enough to have been playing chess just moments before the killing.) He also threatened to kill the arresting officers. Whatever his reason, Vance did not serve the people of New York County by under-charging this killer. He has to go.

The Times has devoted quite a lot of space to Vance over the last few weeks and deservedly so. Given that coverage, what candidate will the Times endorse in November's election? Will the Times endorse a write in candidate over the candidate endorsed by the Democratic party, will the Times not endorse any candidate and remain silent, will the Times call for an investigation or call on Gov. Cuomo to remove Vance? So many options yet the outcome would seem to be clear -- a compromised incumbent will be re-elected.

How come a D.A. needs campaign contributions?

Vance’s standard modus operandi is to go after the little guy, and let the powerful off the hook. Particuarly shameful is that after the 2008 financial crisis that nearly destroyed the U.S. economy, the single bank that Vance chose to indict was a small fmaily owned one serving the immigratn community in Chinatown. See Frontline Abacus: Small Enough to Jial. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/abacus/

What if they ran an election and non one voted for the candidate? Would they win by default?

This is what happens when our elected officials get too comfortable in their positions.. The man appears to be corrupt and if indeed he accepted "contributions" to look the other way then he should step aside or face charges if this is true. More viable candidates are needed preferably ones that have morals and don't accept bribes.

Campaign donations are a side issue. The real problem is putting criminal defense attorneys--the guys who are paid so well to get the crooks off--into prosecutorial positions like district attorney, or attorney general, or head of the SEC, etc. in the first place. Vance came from a criminal defense firm. Holder came from a defense firm. Mary Jo White came from a defense firm. Holder's right hand man Lanny Breuer came from the very same firm as Holder to act as DOJ's Head of the Criminal Division. White's right hand man Andrew Ceresney came from the very same firm as White to act as SEC's Head of Enforcement. Why do we refuse to see what is so painfully obvious? People who service criminals, and who are paid extremely well for it, are given the opportunity to go on the inside, learn the ropes and salt the prosecutorial agencies with their own type, and then return to criminal defense to even more effectively get the crooks off. Holder and Breuer are back at their old firm; White and Ceresney are back at their old firm. I expect Vance will do likewise, perhaps sooner than he might have planned. Let's see this for what it is and do something about it. Let lawyers choose a career path and then make them stick with it. You either serve the public or serve the corrupt; no more pretending that a lawyer can do both.

Key key word: unopposed. So it doesn’t really matter

If one watches the Frontline episode on the small bank in Chinatown you cannot walk away with anything but disgust. Vance and his office abused their power, plain and simple. He should resign.

Anyone who exhibits such poor judgement and such low standards as to accept large contributions from attorneys representing persons under investigation by his office shouldn't be a DA. He issued freed passes for Weinstein, Ivanka and Donald Jr., but pursued heavy-handed prosecutions for small potatoes. This is a man who is more interested in running up conviction rates and protecting friends than in pursuing justice. And he is running unopposed because the political power brokers want him in office. I wonder why.

Vance's campaign contributions are only part of the story. It seems like his office chooses easy cases over hard ones, weak defendants over strong ones. I'm thinking back to his (failed) prosecution of the tiny Chinatown Abacus bank, the only bank to be charged following the 2008 financial crisis. Frontline has an eye-opening documentary on that case that is worth watching.

Articles in this paper have now informed us that Vance's office has incorporated the influence of donors and other powerful and connected individuals when making decisions to prosecute or not. Interesting that this paper also endorsed Mr. Vance whose father was powerful and once a board member of this paper. Clearly there is a circle of back scratching that goes on and the NY Times is often right in the middle of it, especially so in the case of Mr. Vance. This isn't news. The powerful do what they need to do in order to retain power and empower their friends, relatives, allies and donors. But we need to be very clear that this newspaper is more a part of that world, than it is a part of the world it pretends to represent.

Perhaps the Times should look into why it endorsed Cyrus Vance, Jr., over Leslie Crocker Snyder when he ran in 2009. According to Wikipedia, Crocker "founded and led the Sex Crimes Prosecution Bureau" while working in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office. Although the Times endorsed her in 2005, the reasoning for switching horses in 2009 seemed rather specious. Interestingly, the Times argued that Vance would have more of an "appetite" to go after white-collar crime. At lease as far as the Trumps and Harvey Weinstein are concerned it seems that lately he hasn't had the "appetite" to pursue white-collar crime or sex-crimes if they pertain to the rich and famous.

Much like former AG Holder for refusing to prosecute anyone in connection with the financial crisis, and then taking a lucrative white-collar defense position at Covington & Burling after stepping down as AG, DA Vance faces a perception problem of his own making. By taking the money from Weinstein and from counsel to the Trumps, and by refusing to pursue prosecutions in either instance, he basically guaranteed that the anyone who was paying attention would connect the first with the second. If it was not actually crooked on Vance's part, it was at least exceedingly stupid. For that reason alone, I will vote for Mr. Gleason on November 7 and I hope he wins. By the way, since I referenced former AG Holder, it must be said that his predecessors, the much-vilified Mukasey and Gonzales under GWB, actually took white-collar prosecutions seriously and got some big scalps on the wall. Jeff Skilling, Ken Lay, Bernie Ebbers, Dennis Koslowski, Sam Waksal, Martha Stewart, Arthur Andersen - I bet they all wish they could have gotten "the Holder treatment" instead of the actual justice (or at least the much closer approximation to it) that they did get.

Consider Richard Aborn as a write-in candidate for Manhattan district attorney. Mr. Aborn, who ran against Vance in 2009, is a productive progressive and an effective idealist with a career-long commitment to public service. As president of the Citizens Crime Commission of NYC, Richard Aborn has devised and mediated solutions for numerous common ground issues: treating drug addiction as a public health rather than a criminal justice problem; getting guns off the streets before they are used; giving at-risk youngsters constructive alternatives to crime; and addressing racial inequities in the criminal justice system. A progressive agenda of law and order seeks regeneration of our urban community by pursuing justice for all and a recall to life for those laid low by the status quo. Richard Aborn is the right man for that righteous cause.

What surprises me is how little your contribution has to be ($4,600.00) to get your foot in the door.

Vance has been a spectacularly unsuccessful DA: failing to bring cases (Trump, Citi, AIG, cop rapists, etc) and losing cases (Abacus). And now it seems, he gives special treatment to financial backers like Trump? How about a DA who does his job? Someone like Preet Bharara? Where's he now?

When elected politicians, including DA's, return tainted campaign contributions, isn't that a win-win to both the contributor and the politician? Essentially, the contributor got their candidate elected for free and the politician gets to serve their term. If there are no punitive penalties to either parties or laws being broken, this is going to go on and on. Way to go for our democratic voting system!

As Claude Rains said about gambling at Rick's Place in "Casablanca," I'm shocked that the wealthy are treated differently by the legal system than are the rest of us.

This simply stinks. The worst part is that Vance will try to divert attention by bringing politically correct cases (read domestic violence, sexual assault, etc) against UNconnected defendants to get his numbers up in those categories of cases and thus mollify women's groups. The quality of the cases will matter less than the press releases he will be able to generate.

It's time to get the money out of politics or vote the politicians with the money out. The very idea that a district attorney would solicit and accept campaign contributions from those who he may prosecute is just the latest obscenity of our polluted political process. Is it too late for Preet Bahrara to run?

This guy is a fraud and deserves investigating.

District Attorneys, including Manhattan's, have great discretionary power. It is generally exercised when a defendant has the financial resources to hire a lawyer who brings a case to a prosecutor's attention, requesting consideration that matters are not given normally. In general, investigated and arrested people are simply processed, and the process itself is the same throughout the nation: The poor are policed and detained; their cases generally are resolved per institutionalized plea bargain parameters. The misconduct of the more well to do is not investigated, so much as discovered when it glares. When a celebrity or powerful person is in trouble, it is literally a "special" case. The problem is less how the DA treats such cases than a system that finds sending minorities and low-income people to jail a matter of perfectly acceptable routine. No prosecutor in the US has challenged how law enforcement surveillance resources are used to ensure the discriminatory system's continuity. The "liberal" Manhattan District Attorney is quite conservative in that respect.

Poor Abacus Bank of Chinatown-they didn’t understand that a contribution to the DA would have been good insurance.

About time for Saturday Night Live to focus on Vance.

While admittedly not a close observer, my overall sense is that Cy Vance, Jr. has been a failure as New York County DA. He has lost the high-profile cases he's brought, some of them because poor prosecutorial decisions, like the Abacus case. And he has not brought cases that he should have -- Weinstein and the Trumps, being recent examples. I don't trust his judgment, or his competence as a manager.

In New York City, it is common to find judges and District Attorneys who are running unopposed. Given our political climate, it is reasonable to assume that anyone who is approved by both parties is corrupt. Our "Justice System" isn't that at all - it is just a giant industry that savages many, makes a small group of individuals rich, and gets funded by the rest of us.

I'm not sure that this is fair to Vance who has made many great decisions as DA. Can anyone quote to me the reasons and the evidence involved in a case agains Ivanka, Donald Jr. and Weinstein. We all know how we feel about Trump and Weinstein but do any of us know whether getting 12 people together who will agree on the evidence is possible. He's not in the business of prosecuting because he doesn't like a behavior.. He should never prosecute if he doesn't believe that the can get a conviction. That was Comey's ultimate decision about Clinton e-mails and rightfully so. He could never have gotten a conviction.

Cyrus is a shameless hypocrite. And he knows it. No wonder we have lost trust in the 'pseudoleaders' in these United States. Of course, it includes bombastic Trump and nasty McConnell and incompetent Ryan, but Vance is particularly dangerous, as he claims to represent justice. Does he, really?

It would be so nice if the Times would quickly profile the two others in the race, Fliedner and Gleason, so those of us who will vote in two plus weeks will have some idea of who they are and what they represent.

I'm not worried about FAKE news but I am about FAKE Politicians. The former only last a few moments while the later reeks for years.

In both the Trump and Weinstein investigations Vance had incriminating tape recordings of the targets of the investigation and yet opted not to prosecute - does he usually require signed confessions before prosecuting the clients of celebrity contributors?

Lets not forget how he let the wealthy Frenchman off for raping the Black hotel maid. Really, his record is disgraceful.

And what does our mayor say of all this? So far all I hear are crickets.

The only people we actually have a means of holding accountable in this whole sordid system that has become our society, economy, and infrastructure of justice are our elected officials. Vance might have a good excuse here and there. Surely he'll say that it's a systemic problem, not a personal problem, and he's just a victim of a corrupt system like anyone else. But we can't vote Harvey Weinstein out of Hollywood or Jared Kushner out of NY real estate, or the big bank predators out of their corner offices. We can vote out Vance, who is supposed to be one of the highest ranking criminal justice officials in America's most important city, our city. If we don't, what is the message we're sending? I think it's this, to the Weinsteins, the Kushners, and all their ilk: "Keep at it. Cart blanche is still yours. We approve - or at least don't disapprove enough to care."

From 5/31/16 NYT Op-ed piece,"In 2010, the Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus Vance Jr., charged 14 retailers, including Home Depot, with selling illegal switchblade and gravity knives, and agreed not to prosecute them if they stopped selling the knives, handed over profits from past knife sales and financed a $900,000 public-education campaign." Please understand that this was extortion based on a completely unjustifiable expansion of the definition of gravity knife. This also led to the arrest and prosecution of numerous innocent New Yorkers. Basically, certain cops mastered the trick of opening locking pocket knives with a flick of the wrist. If you were stopped and frisked and a knife was found and the cop managed to flick it open, even if it took 17 tries, you were arrested and charged. Never mind that he had to hold it by the back of the blade and that it took much longer than it would've with your thumbnail- you are now in possession of an illegal gravity knife. Vance spun it so that he seemed to be a champion of public safety and not enough people balked. But, once again, we see that those who abuse power, will do so again, as they wield power only for personal gain. Trust not.

A salute to the Times for this articles. I was an FBI Agent for eight years. If there was one takeaway it was people with money can buy innocence. Vance underscores this position. I don't live in NYC so I have no fight with this cat. But I smell a rat.

Governor Cuomo should do the right thing, remove Mr. Vance from office; he has the executive authority to do so. Not removing Mr. Vance compromises the integrity of the legal system in the whole state, not just in Manhattan. By not removing Mr. Vance from office, the Governor will be giving a rubber stamp of approval for corrupt and unethical practices that are multiplying into a pattern. This situation has gone beyond the point of appearing to be corruption, and Governor Cuomo only has to do it once and upon doing so, the matter can be explored and corrected. Here's a blueprint on how to in a simple straightforward manner: Casey Stengel marched out of a the dugout to remove a pitcher who had gotten himself and the team into trouble. "I have to take you out" said Stengel. The pitcher was reluctant to hand the ball over to the Manager and asked "Why?". Mr. Stengel pointed to the grandstands and replied "Up there. People are beginning to talk".

New York Times: Thanks for this article. Might you do a separate one on alternative write-in candidates besides the one that you mention. I suspect there will be more. And, I suspect, that many New Yorkers, including myself, might want to choose one of the write-in candidates to show our displeasure. It's so unfortunate that this did not come out sooner. I know there is less than a month to the election, but it would really be a wonderful public service to provide us with alternative vote options that could make an impact.

I always thought that if you commit a crime that you get punished for it. I guess it depends on your last name or your bank account. Double standards for the have and have nots - again!

Justice on the take: A black man sells a loose cigarette for a dollar and is given a capital punishment; a wealthy man and family are set free for pay-to-play campaign contributions.

Vance has to go. He has lost the trust of the people of this city, and rightfully so.

He should resign now.

Vance has to go.

It seems Mr Vance himself needs to be charged and prosecuted for illegal campaign contributions and unethical behavior. Its hypocrites like this that make it impossible to advance the basic principles of equality and justice for all in the eyes of the law. What is particularly disturbing and enraging is that he did not go after Donald jr and Ivanka and he got basically paid for it. I would not be in the least surprised if he recieved some political favor or under the table deal from Trump himself, the narcissist in chief and the Sith lord of these dark ages.

Yes -- glad you're shining light on the evils (potential or real) of private money in government elections and decision making. But no mention is made of Vance's concern for his crummy batting average in high visibility cases, as the Trump kids and Weinstein surely would have been.

In regards to the Trumps I would like to know what other prominent prosecutors think about that case and whether Vance acted appropriately. May be there is a better man for the job that would be more independent of big money donors and abusers of power and influence.

It’s great that the Times is shining a light on Vance in this article and on Sunday’s editorial page regarding his decisions not to prosecute the Trump kids and Weinstein, and the close nexus of attorney campaign contributions by attorneys representing those potential defendants. What’s missing from these pieces is the fact that in both the Trump and Weinstein cases career prosecutors in Vance’s office, who did the investigatory leg work, actually recommended prosecution, only to be overruled by Vance. That’s what makes Vance’s protestations that there wasn’t enough evidence to proceed with criminal prosecutions in these cases ring so hollow.

And please do not forget his decision **to** prosecute Abacus Bank, which made that small (and not so politically powerful) Chinese American Bank the **only** bank that the Manhattan DA chose to go after for the entire Mortgage Fraud debacle of 2008. The fact that Citibank is without blemish, and Angelo Mozillo still walks a free man, while Cy Vance thought he should attack the meek, is just as glaring an indictment as ignoring the evils of Harvey and Donald. See the Frontline Documentary "Abacus: Small Enough to Jail" and you will understand.

I wish there would be mention of the write in candidate mentioned in another publication popular in NY...Marc Fliedner. I know I am writing him in.

Vance was asked to drop hundreds of cases against Occupy Wall Street participants exercising their 1st Amendment rights who were charged with disorderly conduct. There were so many motions, hearings and trials, a special courtroom and judge were assigned to them. Vance insisted that they all be prosecuted. It's safe to say that few or none of the 99 percenters of OWS or their pro bono lawyers had contributed to Vance's campaign.

Oh, I get it now; when I am in NYC if I invite a woman to my place of business to discuss a modeling shoot, I am entitled to grab her breasts to determine if they are "real." Yes, Mr. Vance, I'm afraid I am one of those that will now always take a grain of salt with just about anything you say.

I'm voting for the other guy merely with the hope that it will frighten enough of the pols to get rid of these contributions for at least a few years until they find a way to bring them back once the public outcry dies down. A few years of a little less corruption of worth chucking Vance out, even if he's no doubt far from the worst of these self righteous defenders of the justice.

What is not covered in this article was Mr. Vance's show case persecution of the Abacus Bank on which he lost on every count that his office attempted. A film about this incident has been shown on public TV and is worth watching. To me it seemed that he picked on this bank because he needed a side show to divert attention following the financial meltdown while never going after any of the easily proven offenders. It begins to appear that his office is the best that money can buy.