TOM KNIGHTON: Politically Selective Prosecution.

The way things are supposed to work in our country, people shouldn’t be punished selectively. Their politics should be largely irrelevant to their prosecution nor should who they are or what they stand for prevent it if prosecution is warranted.

That’s the ideal situation, at least.

In reality, prosecutors use all kinds of criteria to determine who gets prosecuted and who doesn’t. Sometimes, that’s informed by the DA’s politics. A conservative “tough on crime” type might prosecute someone that a more liberal DA would let walk, for example.

But again, as long as the defendant’s politics don’t play into things, I don’t have an issue with that. District attorneys are voted on, after all, and people deserve what they vote for.

In Manhattan, however, DA Alvin Bragg isn’t trying to be subtle. He’s blatantly allowing his politics to expressly determine who gets prosecuted and who doesn’t.

For example, we all know about Trump’s prosecution for a crime that makes absolutely no sense. Bragg distorted the law and likely only got a conviction because of an equally biased judge. The idea that an internal accounting error, at worst, is fraud was stupid beyond belief.

Then there’s the flip side, where now people feel betrayed by Bragg over who he didn’t prosecute. . . .

Let’s remember that the mob at Columbia wasn’t just antisemitic. Being antisemitic is constitutionally protected, after all.

Oh no, they were violent. They assaulted individuals, held people in buildings against their will, and took over entire buildings. They destroyed university property as well.

These are real crimes that don’t require the mental contortionism Bragg engaged in when going after Trump, and yet he opted not to prosecute them. Why?

The obvious answer is that they held the right politics.

When the law isn’t evenhanded, people will take the law into their own hands.