Neofascism: Let me see if I understand this: If Trump is found guilty in his current New York state criminal trial, it will be because the jury concludes that:

• even though the federal prosectors were not confident that they could convict Trump of consciously and knowingly violating campaign finance laws,

• Trump did in fact seek to hide this hush-money transaction—and not because he was scared of his wife—

• and he knew it was the kind of expenditure related to his campaign that should not be hidden,

• and so the falsification of business records was in pursuit of the crime of “promot[ing] … the election of any person by unlawful means…”

Is that right?:

Quinta Jurecic: Why Did Federal Prosecutors Drop Trump's Hush Money Case?: ‘In 2012, the Justice Department failed to win a conviction <politico.com/story/2012… against former Democratic Sen. John Edwards on campaign finance charges related to a similar scheme <politico.com/story/2012…, concerning money paid by wealthy backers of Edwards to support his pregnant mistress during his presidential campaign…. The link… is more direct than in the Edwards prosecution, in which Edwards successfully argued that the payments were made to avoid alerting his dying wife to the affair…. Cohen’s testimony… rebut[s] the… argument that Trump had sought to silence Daniels… to spare his family. (Trump’s New York defense has gestured at this argument, though not in as much depth as many commentators expected before the trial.)… As New York courts have interpreted the statute, prosecutors don’t need to prove a FECA violation beyond a reasonable doubt <lawfaremedia.org/articl… only the intent to commit or cover up a violation… <lawfaremedia.org/articl…>