difficult to convince that the prosecution has proven every element of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt, just based on seat-of-the-pants jury selection principles…

The false statements part is easy, but in and of themselves are only misdemeanors. The felony charges require an intent element, that the Defendant made the false entries with the intent to commit or conceal another crime.

In this case the prosecutor seems to be leaning on a breach of campaign finance laws as the ‘another crime.” (I had thought it might be tax law as well but have not heard much about that recently, and Trump has posted, whether truthfully or falsely, that he “didn’t even take a tax deduction” for this. If he did, it would seem to be easily provable and a slam-dunk)

A juror inclined to acquit could easily find that the intent wasn’t to benefit the campaign but merely to keep from pissing Melania off.

There is already evidence showing that the intent was to benefit/save the campaign, but a juror is free to give that as much or as little weight as he/she deems appropriate.

Tl;dr: as much as some posters whine about banana republics etc, this is a case being fairly tried before a jury who very easily could come back hung, or even convict on only misdemeanor charges.