I mean, Trump's a pretty bad president, but under the system, as it stands, if an unjust prosecution happens, the courts are expected to shoot it down. That's why one has a court system. It shouldn't fall over just because he demands prosecution of political opponents.
In Japan, you have a system where prosecuted cases virtually always lead to a conviction, where for practical purposes, the "filter" happens at the decision to prosecute:
MURAOKA: The conviction rate in most countries, including those with plea bargain systems, is generally over 90 percent. Many trials do end in acquittals, though. By comparison, Japan’s 99.9 percent conviction rate is unnaturally high.
Prosecutors in any country generally pursue cases where they are confident of a positive outcome. However, they are still required to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Japan’s conviction rate creeping toward 100 percent has raised red flags among legal scholars overseas who question whether judges are actually ruling according to the law or are merely deferring to the prosecution.
But that's not how the US works.
There's a legitimate issue in that a prosecution can cause a defender to incur legal fees --- and maybe it's the case that we should try to mitigate than more than is the case today. Or maybe nuisance. Trump certainly has managed to fire people in the Executive Branch who he was angry at. But I'm not especially worried that Trump is going to be just running around convicting people of crimes because he doesn't like them. Trump was prosecuted and convicted because he broke the law. He is, no doubt, pissed off about that. But it doesn't mean that he can just readily go out and have people convicted who he personally doesn't like who haven't broken the law.
I'd also add that even past judges acting to throw out cases that flagrantly don't have any merit or to rule in favor of a defendant, even if you could somehow compromise a judge, the common-law system has the right to a jury trial to add yet another barrier to a compromised government attempting to misuse prosecution.
Finally, there's the pardon, something that Trump has used himself very vigorously to remove punishment from people who he liked, which can come from a future administration.
This is something that the system is already designed to handle. It doesn't need out-of-band involvement.
It's not clear to me whether-or-not the display is fundamentally different from past versions, but if not, it's a relatively-low-resolution display on one eye (600x600). That's not really something you'd use as a general monitor replacement.
The problem is really that what they have to do is come up with software that makes the user want to glance at something frequently (or maybe unobtrusively) enough that they don't want to have their phone out.
A phone has a generally-more-capable input system, more battery, a display that is for most-purposes superior, and doesn't require being on your face all the time you use it.
I'm not saying that there aren't applications. But to me, most applications look like smartwatch things, and smartwatches haven't really taken the world by storm. Just not enough benefit to having a second computing device strapped onto you when you're already carrying a phone.
Say someone messages multiple people a lot and can't afford to have sound playing and they need to be moving around, so can't have their phone on a desk in front of them with the display visible or something, so that they can get a visual indicator of an incoming message and who it's from. That could provide some utility, but I think that for the vast majority of people, it's just not enough of a use case to warrant wearing the thing if you've already got a smartphone.
My guess is that the reason that you'd use something like this specific product, which has a camera on the thing and limited (compared to, say, XREAL's options) display capabilities, so isn't really geared up for AR applications where you're overlaying data all over everything you see, is to try to pull up a small amount of information about whoever you're looking at, like doing facial recognition to remember (avoid a bit of social awkwardness) or obtain someone's name. Maybe there are people for whom that's worthwhile, but the market just seems pretty limited to me for that.
I think that maybe there's a world where we want to have more battery power and/or compute capability with us than an all-in-one smartphone will handle, and so we separate display and input devices and have some sort of wireless commmunication between them. This product has already been split into two components, a wristband and glasses. In theory, you could have a belt-mounted, purse-contained, or backpack-contained computer with a separate display and input device, which could provide for more-capable systems without needing to be holding a heavy system up. I'm willing to believe that the "multi-component wearable computer" could be a thing. We're already there to a limited degree with Bluetooth headsets/earpieces. But I don't really think that we're at that world more-broadly.
For any product, I just have to ask --- what's the benefit it provides me with? What is the use case? Who wants to use it?
If you get one, it's $800. It provides you with a different input mechanism than a smartphone, which might be useful for certain applications, though I think is less-generally useful. It provides you with a (low-resolution, monocular, unless this generation has changed) HUD that's always visible, which a user may be able to check more-discretely than a smartphone. It has a camera always out. For it to make sense as a product, I think that there has to be some pretty clear, compelling application that leverages those characteristics.