This case always seemed like a stretch, as it required bootstrapping a misdemeanor into a felony by showing that the felony was committed in order to cover up another crime, committing a campaign finance violation. Disturbingly, if I understand correctly, that other crime doesn't itself need to be proven (and the federal government declined to charge Trump with that crime).
Several leg experts have detailed what makes the case problematic, and this author argue that proving intent may not be possible.
I give ground to no one in my loathing of Trump, but this smacked of a politically motivated prosecution from the start.
"Elect me D.A., and I'll find something to charge Trump with," seemed to be a substantial part of Alvin Bragg's campaign message.
Of course no one should be above the law, and I think even sitting presidents should be subject to prosecution if warranted. But politically motivated cases built on uncertain legal grounds against one party's presidential nominee, directed by a member of the opposing party, come awfully close to the same democracy-damaging behavior that Trump himself commits. Democrats who n ate gung ho about this particular case seem to have a "we have to destroy the village in order to save it" mentality that I just can't get behind.