How that is even possible without flagrantly violating the accused 6th Amendment rights is beyond me. > In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, **and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation**; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. If neither the judge nor the jury is sure of what predicate crime Trump is supposedly guilty of, how could he have possibly mounted a defence against that crime? This is what leads me to conclude that there will be a guilty verdict, in spite of the fact that the only substantive witness was a known perjurer who obviously perjured himself on the stand in this very trial in the most consequential manner possible (he lied about the nature of the supposed phone call that connected Trump to the payments to Stephanie Clifford). The judge does not care about justice, he is out for a Trump conviction at any cost. If Trump is convicted and the conviction is not effectively immediately overturned by the appeals court, then there is significant risk that the entire judicial system in the US collapses. It becomes impossible to hold that fair and impartial trials can take place. It's funny how the left spend every waking hour worrying that Trump will destroy their country, while they actively destroy their country trying to prevent the will of the people from being exercised by any means necessary. Are they so obtuse as to not see what they are doing? I really don't know which answer is worse.