Long before Donald Trump’s secret trial concluded, I predicted that his conviction was a foregone conclusion, despite the obvious weakness of the case against him.
If the impeachment had been filed in another part of the country, or even another part of New York State, that was more balanced between anti- and pro-Trump voters, I have no doubt the outcome would have been different.
But instead, on Thursday, Trump became the first former president convicted of a crime: convicted of 34 flimsy counts of “falsifying business records.”
Because? Because this case was tried in Manhattan, where practically every citizen wants to keep a certain Donald Trump out of the White House.
Perhaps the most important function of an independent jury in criminal trials is to check the biases of prosecutors and judges.
But for this constitutional protection to work, juries must not be biased against the defendant.
It is quite evident that this essential protection was absent.
Long before Donald Trump’s secret trial concluded, I predicted that his conviction was a foregone conclusion, despite the obvious weakness of the case against him.
If the impeachment had been filed in another part of the country, or even another part of New York State, that was more balanced between anti- and pro-Trump voters, I have no doubt the outcome would have been different.
This case also did not appear to be based on evidence or the law. In fact, I didn’t see any credible evidence of a crime.
The case brought by District Attorney Alvin Bragg – chosen to “get Trump” – was so woefully weak on the facts and the law that it makes Trump’s conviction even more dangerous.
It now means that future prosecutors can make up extremely weak cases against political opponents and be assured of a conviction, even if they simply choose the right location and select the right jurors.
This trial was unprecedented.
Never in the history of the United States has anyone been prosecuted for – as Trump’s defense argued – erroneous accounting by a subordinate of a company that did not disclose the payment of “hush money.”
What there are many precedents for is the payment of money to maintain silence.
Since the 1790s, when Alexander Hamilton paid to keep his adulterous relationship secret, many of those payments have been made by politicians across the spectrum.
The case brought by District Attorney Alvin Bragg – chosen to “get Trump” – was so woefully weak on the facts and the law that it makes Trump’s conviction even more dangerous.
And of course, none of these will have been disclosed on corporate forms (which would defeat the purpose of keeping anything secret) and no one has been prosecuted for failing to make such a disclosure.
The infamous conversation between Stalin and his KGB chief, Lavrenty Beria, is often quoted: “Show me the man and I will find you the crime.”
This prosecution was even worse because, although District Attorney Bragg desperately tried to find a crime to charge Trump with, he failed to find it, as did his predecessor Cyrus Vance.
So Bragg took a dangerous step further than Stalin: he invented a crime.
He found a misdemeanor that had a statute of limitations (making a false accounting entry on a corporate form) and magically turned it into a felony that was within the statute of limitations by claiming that the false entry was intended to cover up another crime.
Throughout the trial, many people deduced that this crime was an alleged attempt at electoral interference. But Bragg never said that explicitly.
In his final instructions, Judge Juan Merchán once again exposed his already apparent bias: He told jurors that they didn’t actually have to agree on the specific details of Trump’s illegal behavior.
The infamous conversation between Stalin and his KGB chief, Lavrenty Beria, is often quoted: “Show me the man and I will find you the crime.”
In fact, the prosecution did not tell the court what Trump’s other “crimes” were until their closing arguments on Wednesday, at which point the defense had no chance to respond.
And even then, the alleged crimes described were vague.
In his final instructions, Judge Juan Merchán once again exposed his already apparent bias: He told jurors that they didn’t actually have to agree on the specific details of Trump’s illegal behavior.
How could anyone defend themselves against such vague accusations?
It was at that moment that I was convinced that the jury would find him guilty.
And that conviction may well usher in a new era of partisan militarization of our justice system.
DA Bragg has shown how easy it is now to get a conviction against a political opponent. Other ambitious prosecutors are likely to follow his lead. And the ultimate loser will be the American public.