Having read the jury instructions, I feel sorry for the jury. This case is even more legally convoluted than I thought. I knew the prosecution was required to prove the existence of two different violations of law; in fact, it has to prove three.
The bottom layer of this cake is the allegation that business records were falsified with involvement by Trump with the intent to defraud, which must include the commission or concealment of a second crime. The second layer–the second crime referenced in the business records statute– is a conspiracy to promote or prevent the election of a candidate by unlawful means. The top layer–the one I was not aware of–involves the “unlawful means,” which means by committing a third crime. The prosecution has thrown out three different theories for that: an illegal campaign contribution under federal law; the falsification of other business records under state law; or violations of state tax law.
I don’t really know what evidence has been put on with regard to the “unlawful means;” the live blogging has been unhelpful on that point. I can’t see where state tax law violations or the falsification of business records after November 2016 in any way resulted in the promotion or prevention of Trump’s election. As I see it, the only proposed “unlawful means” that had anything to do with the outcome of the election was an illegal campaign contribution. Did the prosecution prove that? I don’t know; we’ll see what the jury thinks.