On that conviction

The most interesting, and kind of entertaining, thing about this is the response of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich.   OK, Trump pardoned him, so maybe this is payback, and Blago doesn't really address specifics, so I'll leave it at that; interesting, but not dispositive.  I remember his trial in 2009, however, and the most interesting thing about it was that the Chicago Tribune broke the case wide open.....late enough in the investigation for Blago to be impeached and removed from office, but not late enough that bids for Barack Obama's Senate seat would implicate the big hitters in Chicago politics for a generation, crippling the Democratic Party statewide.  

But regarding the Trump trial and conviction, here are my thoughts:

• When a candidate for prosecutor tells you he (she) will make convicting a particular political opponent a priority, believe them and vote against them.  They will be releasing rapists and murderers to put politicians in prison.
• When a candidate for prosecutor tells you he (she) will make convicting political opponents a priority, just get down to it and file disbarment papers.  It's not acceptable behavior for a politician.
• When a prosecutor files a case without a clear statement of a crime, tell him to go back to the office and come up with one first.  Second time, disbar him.
• If a judge signs off on an indictment without a clear statement of the crime to be tried, disbar him and remove him from the bench.
• If a prosecutor hires 15 lawyers to try a misdemeanor case while downgrading sexual assault and attempted murder cases to misdemeanors, fire him.  And disbar all of them.  
• If a judge silences expert opinions on the presumed law to be used against a defendant, remove him from the bench and disbar him.  
• If a judge, in the jury instructions, allows the defendant to be convicted with differing votes on which laws were violated, remove him from the bench and disbar him.

OK, the list can go on and on, but you get the gist.  My take here is that when a judge allows a prosecutor to prosecute a person without the crime clearly named, he is depriving the defendant of the right to an effective defense, weakening his right to counsel, and a lot more.  Hopefully this will be overturned promptly with a harsh rebuke to "Judge" Mecham and "Prosecutor" Bragg.

Really, overall, I don't think that the legal establishment quite understands the harm that is done when legal rights are not honored.  Yes, if you can afford it, you can appeal it to the Supreme Court, but for 99.9% of us, that's really not an option, and even if you can afford it, you might want to do something else with your time and money.