I can just as easily flip this around. If you won't open up at least to the possibility that your premise is wrong - that Trump was railroaded - there really isn't much room for discussion. Especially if you're going to use verbiage like "delusion" rather than grant the other side 1mm worth of argumentative room.

Oh, certainly. If you can provide me with a cogent legal argument that invalidates the prosecution's case - that demonstrates that there isn't a valid basis for prosecuting Trump - I'll absolutely acknowledge the possibility that he was "railroaded." None of Trump's lawyers was able to find it. The judge's order denying Trump's motion to dismiss lays out all of the cases and arguments raised by both sides, and all of the law supports the prosecution's legal theory of the case:

s3.documentcloud.org - Order denying motion to dismiss people v donaldtrump

Specifically, the court found i) there's plenty of prior precedent where a federal crime was the object crime under this statute; ii) the state election law statute on its face says it applies to both state and federal elections; iii) there's no requirement under NY state tax law that the state be financially harmed by a tax fraud for it to be criminal activity.

But if you've identified the deficiency in the charges that shows they're BS, which the defense team missed, I'd love to hear it.