Forget proving the intent. Bragg believes he'll have the jury to do that. From the get-go this has been a kangaroo court. The jury is not going to be favorable to Trump, just as the Judge in this case is highly conflicted. How's the J6 defendants doing? DC= NYC.

DA Bragg’s indictment doesn’t include any crimes related to the second step, the alleged campaign finance violation. That seems like a big problem for Bragg. He can’t prosecute Trump for federal campaign finance crimes, because he lacks jurisdiction. He can’t prosecute Trump for state campaign finance crimes because it was a federal election and federal law applies, not state law.

But that might not be as much of a problem for Bragg as it appears. So far, folks seem unaware of some New York law that could make Bragg’s job on this point easier. During my quick research, I found this in a treatise on New York criminal law:

“The jury could … convict defendant of falsifying business records if the jury concluded that defendant had the intent to commit or conceal another crime, even if she was not convicted of the other crime” (People v. McCumiskey; see People v. Saxton; see also People v. Taveras (“Read as a whole, it is clear that falsifying business records in the second degree is elevated to a first-degree offense on the basis of an enhanced intent requirement … not any additional actus reus element”) ).

In plain English, what these cases held is that prosecutors don’t have to convict someone for the necessary second crime. They only have to prove there was an INTENT to “commit or conceal” the second crime. It’s a thin distinction, but there it is.

The key to this trial is attacking the unnamed 'related charge'. The NY law is unconstitutional.