Like many of us who found the legal theory upon which the New York County “hush money” indictment of Trump problematic, former prosecutor turned prawf Randall Eliason had his doubts.

The New York courts appear to be mixed on this question and there is no definitive ruling from the state’s highest court. If Bragg’s theory is that the false entries were part of a scheme to defraud an agency such as the New York State Board of Elections, then a court might apply this broader definition. If his theory is that it was a scheme to deceive the voters, I think a court is likely to hold that does not constitute fraud. (Part of the problem, as I discuss below, is that we don’t know exactly what Bragg’s legal theory is.)

Now that Trump has been convicted, Eliason’s questions haven’t been answered, but his doubts have disappeared.

I was among the commentators who criticized the case. It was old, the so-called zombie case that had been kicking around for years. It appeared to rest on several untested and controversial legal theories. It seemed like a relatively trivial bookkeeping charge, unworthy of a prosecution of a former president.

But I have to hand it to the Manhattan prosecutors. Over the course of this trial, they convinced me — as they clearly and overwhelmingly convinced the jury. There will be an appeal, of course, and Mr. Trump may have some persuasive legal arguments.

But the jury’s quick decision reinforces the district attorney’s view that this was a righteous prosecution and about much more than mere accounting entries.

That the jury convicted has absolutely no bearing on the question of whether the legal theory upon which the enhancement of the case from misdemeanor to felony was sound. That the evidence was strong and more than sufficient that Trump falsified business records is one thing, but the conclusion that it was done with “intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof” is quite another.

That the state of New York law does not require the jury to be unanimous on what the “another crime” must be is one issue. Much as I think the law is wrong and deprives the defense of notice of what the prosecution is alleging such that he can prepare an adequate defense, I recognize that it is the current state of the law. Justice Juan Merchan has no authority to rule or charge anything other than the law of New York as it currently stands.

But that’s merely the first level of issues with the sufficiently of evidence to prove what the defendant intended. It’s not about a vibe or a feeling that it was nefarious, but whether it was done with the intent to commit a crime. Crimes have elements. What are the elements. What is the evidence that proved those elements, or at least the intent if the “another crime” was merely intended but not committed. It’s not enough to feel criminalish.

And yet, the strong evidence proffered in support of the primary charge, falsifying business records, does not suffice to prove the enhancement of “another crime.” Was it proven? Was the evidence sufficient. That’s subsumed in the gushing praise for the conviction, the jury’s fortitude and the prosecution’s acumen.

The problem, however, is that going all in for Trump’s conviction, or against Trump’s conviction, has become a test of tribal loyalty. If you persist in raising questions about the case, you must be a Trumpkin because loyal Trump haters cheer the conviction and never utter a word that provides aid and comfort to the enemy, the Trumpers who call the case rigged and the judge corrupt.

Impressively, CNN legal analyst Elie Honig refused to sacrifice his integrity or credibility to be a good team player. Despite his being as disgusted by Trump as any sane person, he nonetheless held firm to the same legal issues after the conviction as before.

So, to inflate the charges up to the lowest-level felony (Class E, on a scale of Class A through E) — and to electroshock them back to life within the longer felony statute of limitations — the DA alleged that the falsification of business records was committed “with intent to commit another crime.” Here, according to prosecutors, the “another crime” is a New York State election-law violation, which in turn incorporates three separate “unlawful means”: federal campaign crimes, tax crimes, and falsification of still more documents. Inexcusably, the DA refused to specify what those unlawful means actually were — and the judge declined to force them to pony up — until right before closing arguments. So much for the constitutional obligation to provide notice to the defendant of the accusations against him in advance of trial. (This, folks, is what indictments are for.)

In these key respects, the charges against Trump aren’t just unusual. They’re bespoke, seemingly crafted individually for the former president and nobody else.

I can’t speak to the depth of Elie’s personal feelings toward Trump. I despise the vulgar, deceitful, dishonest, narcissistic ignoramus, as I’ve made abundantly clear over the years. But my feelings toward him have nothing to do with my thoughts about the legal issues in the case. I can defend murderers while hating murder. Even more importantly, if the law can be twisted to get one defendant, it can be twisted to get others. That’s how the law goes terribly wrong.

This is hardly an absolution of Trump, whose falsification of business records is emblematic of  Trump’s amorality, where there is neither shame of wrongdoing nor doubt about doing whatever best serves his interests regardless of harm or damage done others. And that goes for his liaison with a porn star while his wife was caring for their newborn son, also emblematic of his shamelessness. But the law matters more, at least to me and Elie Honig. For a while, it mattered to Eliason, too, but no doubt this will put him back on the invitation list for faculty teas.