I think you're missing the most important reason we have become a banana republic. You alluded to it, but didn't quite make the connection. To elevate the misdemeanor to a felony, there has to be second crime. Braggs alleges that there was but he hasn't said what the crime is, and he doesn't intend to prove there was a crime at trial. He'll just assert there was one.

An absolute defense for Trump is that there was no second crime so the misdemeanor can't be elevated to a felony. Trump, and all Americans, have three fundamental constitutional rights: 1) the right to confront your accuser, 2) the right to know the charges against you, and 3) the right to presumption of innocence until proven guilt. Braggs has denied them all of those rights.

Trump can't confront his accuser because he doesn't know who he is. Is it the state? The federal government? A private citizen. Trump doesn't know because Braggs won't tell him, so Trump can't confront his accuser.

Trump doesn't know the charges against him because Braggs won't tell him what the second crime was. How can Trump defend himself against a charge he doesn't even know what it is?

Trump is presumed guilty before proven innocent. He is presumed guilty before being charged, or indicted, let alone convicted. How can this possibly be constitutional? Why isn't Trump defending his rights? Why is he ceding them to Braggs without a fight? I don't get it.

Expand full comment

Your point has force and was elaborated in the piece I will link at the end. But I can't get to everything worthwhile in a post I want to keep reasonably bite-size. Plus, I don't know that I'm finished with Mr. Bragg. https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/the-lawfare-against-donald-trump?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=363080&post_id=143856850&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=false&r=8fsal&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Expand full comment

Thanks. I agree with that link 1000%. But here's what I don't understand, and maybe you can help me. Why isn't Trump arguing it a trial? Trump has the right to confront his accuser, know the charges against him, and be presumed innocent. But he has none of these.

If the judge doesn't care, then surely SCOTUS does. And why isn't Trump making these points when he talks to the media and at is rallies? Surely, this would put some pressure on the judge.

But more fundamentally, these are fundamental constitutional rights. It doesn't matter whether he is convicted or not. He is being denied these right at this moment. Is there really nothing he can do?

Sorry for the rant, but this topic really upsets me. Thanks.

Expand full comment