Maverick Philosopher

Donald J. Trump is a convicted felon.  Indisputably true. And so the question is asked: "Would you vote for a convicted felon for U. S. president?"

Time was when almost everyone, regardless of political affiliation, would have answered in the negative. For until recently lawfare was rare if not nonexistent in the USA.  When procedural norms were respected, a conviction meant something: to be found guilty in a properly conducted proceeding by a jury of one's peers was taken to be good evidence of actual guilt.

But no more. We conservatives are unmoved by Trump's being a convicted felon. We return an affirmative answer to a different question: "Would you vote for a victim of lawfare railroaded in a Soviet-style show trial for U. S. president?" Yes. For  to be 'convicted' of a 'felony' in a show trial  in which the procedural rules have been flouted has no tendency to show that the defendant is guilty of any crime.

A defendant found guilty of a crime in a court of law may or may not be guilty of the crime with which he is charged — even if the  courtroom proceedings were procedurally correct in every respect. And similarly if he were found not guilty. One may be found not guilty and yet be guilty. O. J. Simpson was found not guilty of the double homicide of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman.  You will all remember that so-called 'trial of the century.'  But no one believes that Simpson did not do the dastardly deeds. Though found not guilty, his guilt stank and stinks to high heaven.  No one is looking for the 'real killer,' to adapt a verbal riff from the late F. Lee Bailey. So while the courtroom proceedings were procedurally correct,  the objectively wrong verdict was arrived at: found not guilty, Simpson was in fact guilty.

A fortiori in the case of Trump in which the procedural rules were set aside. Alan Dershowitz:

The infamous conversation between Stalin and the head of his KGB Lavrenty Beria is often quoted: 'Show me the man, and I will find you the crime.'

This prosecution was even worse because, though DA Bragg tried desperately to find a crime with which to charge Trump, he failed to find one, as did his predecessor Cyrus Vance.

So Bragg went a dangerous step further than Stalin ever did: he made up a crime.

He found a misdemeanor that was past the statute of limitations — making a false bookkeeping entry on a corporate form — and magically converted it to a felony that was within the limitation period by alleging that the false entry was intended to cover up another crime.

Throughout the trial, many people inferred that crime to be an alleged attempt at election interference. But Bragg never actually explicitly stated that.

In fact, the prosecution didn't tell the court what Trump's other 'crimes' were until their closing arguments on Wednesday – by which point the defense had no opportunity to respond.

And even then, the supposed crimes outlined were vague.

In his closing instructions, Judge Juan Merchan exposed his already apparent bias once more – telling the jurors that they didn't actually have to agree on the specifics of Trump's unlawful behavior.

How could someone defend themselves against such vague allegations?

It was at this moment that I became convinced that the jury would find him guilty.

And that conviction may well mark the beginning of a new era of partisan weaponization of our justice system.

DA Bragg has demonstrated how easy it now is to get a conviction against a political opponent. Other ambitious DA's are likely to follow suit. And the ultimate losers will be the American public.

John Yoo is right : this is a direct assault on the rule of law and the separation of powers.