What specific charges did the Manhattan DA bring in the Trump hush-money indictment?

1. What the indictment actually charged — a single statutory theory

Prosecutors in Manhattan did not bring an array of distinct crimes; they charged Trump with 34 counts, each count alleging a separate act of falsifying business records in violation of New York law (falsifying business records in the first degree) tied to specific documents and dates between February and December 2017 (34 counts) ^{[1] [3]}.

2. The factual core the charges rely on — hush money and reimbursements

The counts center on payments made to adult‑film actor Stormy Daniels in 2016 and the manner in which Trump allegedly caused reimbursements to Michael Cohen to be recorded as legal expenses. Prosecutors say Cohen paid $130,000 to Daniels to secure her silence and that the subsequent reimbursements to Cohen were concealed through falsified invoices and corporate bookkeeping entries (payment: $130,000; reimbursements disguised as legal fees) ^{[2] [4] [3]}.

3. How the 34 counts break down — documents and timing

Each of the 34 felony counts corresponds to a different document or entry with dates spanning Feb. 14 through Dec. 5, 2017, according to the indictment’s descriptions; prosecutors tied those discrete records to the alleged scheme to hide the true nature of the reimbursements (34 counts; document dates Feb–Dec 2017) ^{[1] [3]}.

4. The prosecution’s legal theory — falsification plus an intent to commit another crime

Manhattan prosecutors pursued first‑degree falsifying‑business‑records charges, which in New York can escalate to a felony where the falsification is alleged to have been done with intent to commit or conceal another crime. The office argued the bookkeeping entries were falsified to conceal conduct related to the hush‑money payments and, under its theory, to conceal offenses tied to the campaign context ^{[1] [5]}.

5. The role of witnesses and trial evidence cited by reporting

Reporting and trial coverage emphasize Michael Cohen as the pivotal witness describing the payment and reimbursement structure. Prosecutors also introduced testimony and documents — including communications and testimony from former White House aides — to link Trump to approval of the scheme and the false entries (Cohen as star witness; testimony from former aides) ^{[5] [6]}.

6. Outcomes and later procedural developments

A New York jury in May 2024 found Trump guilty on these falsifying‑business‑records counts; the trial judge later sentenced him to an unconditional discharge after his election, and appeals and federal‑court procedural fights have followed, including efforts to move the matter to federal court on immunity grounds and reviews after Supreme Court decisions about presidential immunity (guilty verdict May 2024; unconditional discharge at sentencing; appeals and immunity litigation ongoing) ^{[5] [7] [6]}.

7. Competing legal and political interpretations in coverage

Some reporting frames Bragg’s prosecution as a narrow state fraud case focused on bookkeeping fraud (AP, PBS summaries), while other outlets and Trump’s legal team called the theory novel and politically charged, arguing evidence about official conduct and White House testimony improperly broadened the case and raised immunity issues now in appellate review (prosecution called novel; defense argued politically charged and immunity concerns) ^{[8] [9] [10]}.

8. What reporting does not address or confirm here

Available sources do not mention any additional, separate criminal charges in the Manhattan indictment beyond the 34 counts of falsifying business records; they also do not, in these excerpts, supply the indictment’s full text or every specific document description, nor do they include the grand jury transcript — those materials are not reproduced in the cited reporting (not found in current reporting) ^{[1] [3]}.

9. Why the narrow statutory label matters beyond procedure

Labeling the case as falsifying business records — and pressing 34 counts tied to discrete entries — shaped trial strategy, jury instructions, and appellate arguments: prosecutors used the false‑records vehicle to present a broader narrative about concealment of a politically sensitive payment, while defense teams have seized on that statutory form to argue overreach and to press claims about presidential immunity and improper evidence (statutory label shaped strategy and appeals) ^{[1] [8] [6]}.

If you want, I can pull the exact language of one or two of the 34 counts as published by the Manhattan DA (not reproduced in these summaries) or assemble a timeline of the payments and reimbursements shown at trial using these sources.