Regarding the line of discussion about how the escalation to felony charges relies on an assertion that the violations were committed in furtherance of another crime which has not been clearly articulated, and the argument that this creates a legally weak case — there is a rebuttal here:
Obviously, nobody knows if this will be compelling for the jury until they return a verdict, and similarly nobody knows if the courts will buy the framing until the appeals are complete. So it’s just another opinion.
That said, the prosecution’s initial thrust with Pecker feels like it’s been more effective than expected, and the defense’s nibbling away at timelines and terminology seems to be pretty weak sauce.