[Steinglass] argued that an agreement Mr. Trump struck with The National Enquirer to buy and bury unflattering stories1 was a “subversion of democracy”2 that prevented the American people from deciding for themselves whether they cared that Mr. Trump had had sex with a porn star.3 Mr. Steinglass’s arguments could be crucial: Prosecutors needed to show that the business records were falsified 4 to hide a conspiracy to influence the 2016 election.5

1. That is not “unlawful means”, nor a crime.

2. That can be a crime. Show me the statute that defines “subversion of democracy.”

3. The American people have no right to information, that a candidate had sex with a porn star.

4. That’s a crime.

5. That is void for vagueness and overbreadth.