Good luck explaining to an ordinary citizen that this process is nothing but Solomonically disinterested application of the law.

And that’s before you get to the question of federal preemption. John Yoo and Robert Delahunty have argued that the Supreme Court’s decisions suggest that it is an unconstitutional interference with uniquely federal enforcement powers to allow state prosecutors to enforce federal laws that are supposed to be uniform — such as the laws regarding presidential campaign finance. Those decisions include some rulings much-beloved by liberals, such as the 2012 decision in Arizona v. United States, which barred Arizona from criminalizing violations of federal immigration law.

As with the statute of limitations, remember: Every single one of these legal ambiguities has to be resolved in Bragg’s favor or he loses the case. If he’s wrong about even a single one of these knotty and unprecedented questions, he’s put the country through this for nothing.

[Andrew will focus on the victimless-crime aspect of the indictment in his next installment. As I asked yesterday, if this is a fraud, who was defrauded? If this covered up another crime, what was the crime? — Ed]