One thing that could throw this whole circus for a loop: SCOTUS immunity decision. It’s a foregone conclusion that the court will reaffirm (limited) presidential immunity, which would be a win. Since the “crime” in this bogus case is alleged to have occurred in 2017, an evidentiary hearing would be in order.
I'm not sure what "crime" occurred in 2017 that President Trump was trying to cover up with falsified business records to protect his campaign in 2016.
That's some weird time-warp going on there. That just goes to show how vague Bragg is being about what this other "crime" actually is. If he can't define it, then President Trump must have the presumption of innocence regarding it.
-PJ