If they try this, I'm all for the GOP having to hold fundraisers or take the money out of the RNC treasury to pay when they fail. And it possibly costing them some seats.

(Don't even bother looking at the comments, because it'll be 95% MAGA/conservatives or good old fashioned trolls.)

These make more sense.  #3 is probably the one they have the best chance of sticking.

--

Slight correction, there, but an important one. Clinton's impeachment was over lying under oath about the affair, not the affair itself. And for that distinction, I supported the impeachment, and I still do.

However, if I'm going to say that, then I also have to say that Trump sure as shit deserves his impeachment(S!!!) and criminal investigations.

To clarify, paying Daniels was not illegal, even if it was done for the purpose of influencing the perceptions of voters. The crime was that Trump intentionally misclassified the payment to Daniels as a legal fee.

The misclassification is a misdemeanor on its own, and was past the statute of limitations.

Bragg got around the statute of limitations by charging Trump with the felony version, which is falsifying business records in the first degree.  However, in order to qualify as a felony under the statute, Trump must have made the misclassification with the intent to commit another crime, or in the furtherance of another crime.

The "other crime" is a violation of New York state law 17-152 (Conspiracy to Promote or Prevent Election).  So no, "paying Daniels the way he did" does not satisfy the elements on its own.  You still need to find a violation of 17-152.  Any of the three crimes mentioned by Michael Penn above would be sufficient, but some of them would be tough to prove.

For example, if you wanted to prove the payment was an illegally large donation to Trump's campaign, you would need to show the payment was done for the purpose of helping the campaign; not just that the campaign benefitted.  Defense lawyers could argue Trump made the payment to hide the affair from his wife.

Additional false business filings, ie the bank records of the wire transfers might work, but as the transfers are among the payments to Stormy Daniels, they are arguably part of the same set of transactions or occurrences, rather than a separate crime.

The tax charge seems like it would be the easiest to prove, because its very straight forward and you wouldn't have to get into Trump's motives.  However, if damages are a required element (I don't know if they are without having seen the statute the charge is based on), then that could also be challenging because the misclassification inflated Cohen's income, and the taxes on the claimed income were paid.

I'm not saying Trump didn't do anything wrong, or that it would be impossible for Bragg to prove any of these crimes, but there are no slam dunks here either.

The did prove it.  In front of a Jury.  

And did so unanimously.

Also, while the jury instructions required jurors to vote unanimously for guilt, they were allowed to disagree about the illegal means by which Trump intended to violate election laws.  That is potentially problematic.

Finally, if Stormy's detailed testimony about her sexual encounter with Trump is deemed to be more prejudicial than probative, the conviction could be reversed on that basis alone.

"But what is it with this pretending what happened did not happen?"

I'm not.  I just recognize there is a very strong possibility this will be overturned on appeal, which will give Trump another bite at the apple.  So they're going to have to prove it again, which I think always helps the defense, because they've already seen everything the prosecution will throw at them, and they've previewed how a jury is likely to respond to key arguments and pieces of evidence.  The defense is likely to be more effective in a second trial.  On top of that, if the appellate court finds there were problems with the jury instructions, or evidentiary rulings during the first trial, any instructions they give the trial court on remand will favor the defense, and make another conviction more difficult.

"So it is in the Trumpverse."

...except I don't support Trump.  If I had my way, neither he or Biden would be on the ballot.  I agree Trump is unfit to serve as President, but whether he should be president is not the same question as whether I believe these convictions will hold up.