The Georgia case is itself legally suspect. It is a novel case, and were the case go forward, we can easily imagine the consequence. Every Democratic federal official will be tried in Wyoming or some other rock-ribbed Republican state for racketeering; and, every Republican federal official will be tried in a solidly Democrat jurisdiction. There will be no end to it, until either the U.S. Supreme Court speaks to the matter, or the Congress in a shocking moment of non-partisanship sends a Constitutional Amendment to the states for ratification.
The D.C. is similar. Both the Ga. and the D.C. cases are bogus.
The other two cases are more mundane.
The New York case (involving filing a false statement concerning hush payments to Trump’s paramour) rests on whether the statute of limitations had expired.
The Florida case (involving documents) concerns whether Trump sufficiently cooperated with authorities in the return of federal property.
If I were the Democrats, I’d proceed with the documents case first, get a conviction via a plea deal for a slap on the wrist. Then, proceed to the false statements case, with the same object (a conviction via a plea deal). Then, I would magnanimously drop the other two cases, saying that the point has been made: Trump is a liar and a criminal.
As it is, the Democrats are choosing Trump to be our nominee by making him into a victim; and, with the sympathy he’s getting, Trump looks like he could win the election.
That statute of limitations issue, however, is based on a federal question, whether the payoff to Stormy Daniels could in any way legitimately be deemed a violation of federal election law because the extension of the statute of limitations was based on the concept that Trump had a logical fear of the payoff being deemed a violation of federal election law. In fact just about all of the authorities who spoken on it have concluded that a payoff like that does not violate federal election law. Thus, there's a good chance that the federal election law part of the suit against of the criminal proceedings against Trump could be deemed preempted by federal election law and therefore have to be tried in federal court. Can't say for sure, but the rules on preemption in the area of federal labor law are just about absolute, with three Supreme Court cases supporting the concept being that state courts should not be able to develop conflicting opinions in the exclusive federal area of collective bargaining law. If you don't believe it look up what may be the most recent of those cases, Allis Chalmers Corporation versus Lueck.
the leftists in government would never overplay their hand...
/s