From watching the discussion with Rachel, Lawrence, Katie, Nicolle, and Chris: What I learned from Katie and Lawrence means that Donald Trump is done in this prosecution. He’s done here. Why is that the case? Katie Phang is an attorney. She explained that you don’t need to prove the bootstrapping crime beyond a reasonable doubt. She essentially said that it simply has to be a rational, working theory. Second, we learned that the motivations can be both. Suppose, contrary to fact, that their motive was both to stop it from hurting Melania’s feelings and to protect the campaign. Then, part of it was still to protect the campaign and that’s all that the prosecution needs. What the defense needs then is not that it was to protect Melania’s feelings. They need that it was not to protect the campaign. The opening and closing statements are not evidence. The defense’s questions are not evidence. The testimony offered under direct examination by the witness under oath is evidence. All the evidence says that it was done to protect Trump’s candidacy and none of it says that it was for Melania who has not been in court once while her husband is on trial for 34 felonies. In fact, the evidence is that it was not done for Melania’s benefit. The only way that they can get a counter narrative that says it was exclusively for Melania and not at all in order to protect Trump’s candidacy is for Donald Trump to take the stand. He is not going to do that. As Lawrence pointed out, there is a zero percent probability that Donald Trump will take the stand. No matter what the defense does, they are not going to get any evidence that says that it was not at all for the campaign.