Paul Rosenzweig: “To be sure, a determination by a judge that there is prima facie evidence to support a belief that an attorney and/or his client have engaged in criminal activity is not equivalent to the requirement for a criminal conviction of ‘proof beyond a reasonable doubt.’ But it is, all the same, an astonishing statement about the state of the evidence that demonstrates the strength of the cases against Trump.”
“To put it simply, if there is sufficient evidence for a judge to find the crime-fraud exception applies, then there is likely enough evidence to support the presentation of an indictment to a grand jury. That prospect cannot give Trump any real comfort, but the slow, deliberate operation of the rule of law ought to comfort those who still think that rules should matter.”
