So at the end of the day the question "still" remains... what was the second crime?

A good question? How does an appeal work when the parties don't know what reasoning the jury used to convict?

So when this gets to the appellate courts (which is will) how will anyone really know what "second crime" was used to determine guilt?

Another reason (after the fact) as to why not requiring the prosecution to commit to a second crime, not having that second crime mapped out for the jury, and not making them come up with a unanimous decision was wrong. Because now, after the fact, we do not know what Trump was ultimately found guilty of? That seems more than just a little bit unconstitutional.

Was it the FEC violation? If so, then the jury relied on the incorrect jury instruction on federal law by a New York State judge residing over a county court room where he has no jurisdiction to refer to federal law. But the problem wasn't just that he didn't have jurisdiction, but that he was woefully uninformed as to campaign laws. He provided instructions that if not 180 degrees, where at least 90% off from the actual law.

Now, granted, the other two choices were no better. Trump doesn't have any tax liability for his legal expenses. There was never any investigation as to whether he committed any tax crimes. Only Cohen had something to gain or lose in terms of taxes. But since the judge would not allow Cohen to be questioned about his taxes or allow his tax records to be introduced, we do not know how Cohen even paid taxes on it? How can it be used as the second crime when there was no effort to prove it was a crime and the judge wouldn't allow the issue to even be litigated.

The third option of falsifying business records to cover up falsifying business records is a logical mindbender and probably the most legally suspect. You committed the same misdemeanor twice, but a prosecutor elevated one of them to a felony because those same two misdemeanors might have been related? Did they even tell the jury what second set of business records were potentially covered up? I don't seem to recall anything regarding a second set of business records that were being covered up by the Cohen invoices.

But the main issue is that even right now, after the verdict, the game of hide the second crime is still being played. There was no second crime offered in the indictment. The prosecution spent most of their time pushing the idea of election interference as the second hypothetical crime, and then the judge took a spatula and took three different parts of the legal spaghetti that had been tossed against the wall, and provided the options for the first time during jury instructions. He didn't even include what the prosecution had babbled on about for most of the five week trial. And here we stand.

The judge ran such a bad court case that it ended without knowing what crime Donald Trump was found to have covered up.