3 Things Donald Trump’s Indictment Revealed

We’ve all spent weeks speculating about what charges Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg will bring against Donald Trump. Now, we finally have the unsealed indictment in our possession.

But is it everything we were expecting? And is this a case Bragg can actually win? The Root spoke with a former San Francisco prosecutor to try to find out.

As you likely know, the grand jury indicted the former President on 34 separate counts of felony falsifying business records. (We don’t gatekeep at the Root, so here’s the actual indictment).

The theory of the case in the indictment is that each instance of falsifying business records to conceal a previous crime (related to hush money payments to Stormy Daniels) is its own felony. After reading through the indictment, Henderson argues that this is actually a stronger case than previously anticipated.

“Last week, I was feeling like this is not the strongest case,” said Henderson. “We hadn’t seen the indictment. We hadn’t seen the evidence, and we hadn’t seen the approach.”

A large part of Henderson’s confidence, in this case, is the number of charges Bragg is bringing. “I expected one or two charges from their strongest case,” says Henderson.

But instead, Bragg brought 34 separate counts, which means a jury will have a more challenging time dismissing the numerous instances in which Bragg will allege Trump committed a crime. “Let’s just be clear, it’s just going to take one felony conviction,” says Henderson.

People who have been paying attention to Trump over the last couple of weeks might be confused about why he’s continued publicly discussing this case. Especially now that the world knows he’s been charged with 34 felony counts, you might wonder why the man hasn’t mellowed.

On Tuesday, the judge warned Trump about his incendiary language but didn’t go so far as to place a “gag order” on him, which would prevent him from publicly speaking out about the case.

Henderson, who spoke to the Root about this issue in greater detail in another article, thinks Trump may be being extra-obnoxious on purpose:

Former San Francisco Prosecutor Paul Henderson has a theory. “I believe that he did that to try to get a gag order. He wants to not talk about it,” says Henderson.

For those who don’t know, a “gag order” is a legal order issued by a judge that makes it so a case can not be discussed publicly. And although we hate to give Trump’s ranting too much credit, in this instance, Henderson’s theory could hold some water.

The facts of this case don’t look good for Trump, and he knows it, says Henderson. So the fewer people who are allowed to talk about the facts this close to the Republican primary, the better for Trump.

“I’m hoping that we continue with restrictions that allow the public to understand and know what’s happening,” says Henderson, who served as a prosecutor under Kamala Harris. “Because we know [it’ll be interpreted] in a way that’s not tethered to the truth about what’s happening. And no one will be allowed to defend themselves if there’s a gag order.”

Trump’s potential game-playing aside, the real question is, what would it take for Bragg to win this case?

“At a minimum, he’s going to have to prove that Donald Trump is responsible for filing, creating false business records,” says Henderson. “And at a minimum, he’s going to have to prove that his intent behind filing these false business records triggers a violation of the law.”

In layperson’s terms, Bragg will need to prove that Trump knowingly falsified business records to cover up a crime (likely violating election laws). And although it would be helpful, Henderson says Bragg wouldn’t need to prove that Trump actually committed the initial crime he was allegedly trying to conceal. All he needs to show is that when he falsified business records, Trump falsified records believing he was covering up another crime.

Legal theory aside, winning the case will rely on convincing a jury to buy this somewhat complex case with no legal precedent. This is the first time anyone has tried to combine these charges in New York State like Bragg is attempting to do now, says Henderson.

“I will say in looking at the evidence and looking at the charges themselves… there’s a pretty decent argument there,” says Henderson, “the issue is because it’s a novel kind of charge, how a jury will receive it?”