Thanks for these updates.

This Melania business interests me. Which, if either, is the correct jury instruction:

To convict, you must find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant's principal purpose in falsifying his business records was to cover up [the election law crime].

To convict, you must find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant would not have falsified his business records were he not trying to cover up [the election law crime].

I understand that "better after the election than before it" establishes the election as one motivation, but "better than ..." is not "all I cared about is..." I don't know the legal status of the "Melania defense" if the jury accepts that avoiding marital problems was a consideration in Trump's actions. (I'm not sure why Trump would need to falsify his business records to keep Melania in the dark.)

I'm not clear on what election law violation Trump was trying to cover up. An illegal contribution by Pecker? No, Trump didn't fund that one. An illegal contribution by Cohen? Cohen went to jail for that, but that's just a plea deal. If Trump in fact funded the payment to Stormy, how can that payment by Cohen have been a crime?

I'm hardly a fan of Trump, but I'm having a very hard time seeing the crime in this prosecution, and I worry that its failure will help Trump not hurt him.

MAGA delenda est.