What are the 34 counts in the indictment involving Donald J. Trump and Michael Cohen?

1. What the 34 Counts Specifically Allege — The Paper Trail Prosecutors Say Exists

The available summaries and the indictment text itself say that each of the 34 counts corresponds to a separate false business-record entry in Trump Organization books or related records, including invoices purportedly from Michael Cohen, entries in a Detail General Ledger, and checks and check stubs from the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust account; the entries are dated at various points between February 14, 2017, and December 5, 2017 ^[2]. Prosecutors charged that the records falsely described reimbursements to Cohen as legitimate legal expenses or other business items when in fact they were reimbursements for a payment to Stormy Daniels and related concealment steps, and they framed the falsifications as committed with intent to defraud and to conceal another crime, elevating the counts to felony-level first-degree falsifying business records ^{[1] [5]}. The indictment was presented and signed by the Manhattan District Attorney and returned by a grand jury, and prosecutors used a chart and trial evidence linking each count to discrete checks, invoices, or ledger entries during trial proceedings and subsequent summaries ^{[1] [2]}.

2. How Prosecutors Connected the Entries to an Underlying Scheme and Election Concerns

Prosecutors advanced a narrative that the false entries were not isolated bookkeeping errors but part of a deliberate scheme to suppress damaging information during the 2016 presidential campaign, alleging that reimbursements to Cohen were designed to hide payments that influenced the election by concealing potentially vote-influencing material ^{[6] [4]}. The 34-count structure allowed prosecutors to map specific dates and documents to the alleged concealment effort, and at trial jurors were shown charts tying invoices and trust-account checks to the hush-money transaction; prosecutors also referenced other related payments as corroboration of a pattern ^{[1] [4]}. The indictment’s language that the falsifications were intended “to aid and conceal the commission of another crime” is critical because it converts what might be a misdemeanor bookkeeping allegation into a class E felony under New York law, a legal pivot prosecutors emphasized in seeking conviction ^{[2] [5]}.

3. Defense Arguments, Appeals, and Competing Legal Theories Presented in the Records

Defense teams consistently argued that the purported reimbursements were legitimately recorded as legal fees or business expenses for Cohen’s work, denying any criminal intent to defraud, and they labeled the indictment and prosecution as politically motivated or overreaching; those arguments formed the core of appeals challenging both evidentiary rulings and legal theories used to elevate the records’ falsity into felonies ^{[3] [4]}. Appeals filed after trial asserted that prosecutors failed to prove the necessary intent to defraud and that the jury was exposed to improper evidence, including material touching on Trump’s official duties, while other appellate arguments referenced broader constitutional questions such as presidential immunity; the defense frames the 34-count charging strategy as a manufactured overcharge rather than proof of discrete criminal acts ^{[3] [4]}. These defense positions recast the same document set as lawful business bookkeeping, not a coordinated concealment scheme, creating the central factual and legal conflict reflected throughout the materials ^[5].

4. Trial Outcome, Post-Conviction Steps, and Diverging Accounts of Consequences

The provided analyses record that jurors found Trump guilty on all 34 counts at trial, with the prosecution’s detailed mapping of entries convincing a jury that the elements of first-degree falsifying business records were met, though sentencing and post-conviction motions produced protracted litigation including appeals that raised questions about admissibility and legal theory ^{[1] [6]}. One summary notes that post-verdict procedural developments included sentencing adjournments and an eventual unconditional discharge reported on January 10, 2025, reflecting the complex interplay between conviction, sentencing practice, and ongoing appellate processes in the case’s aftermath ^[6]. Reporting and official materials present contrasting narratives about the significance of the convictions: prosecutors framed the verdict as enforcement of election-integrity and fraud laws, while defense and allied commentators framed the aftermath as politically charged and legally tenuous, a split reflected in subsequent appeals and public messaging ^{[3] [6]}.

5. What the Documents Leave Open and Why Competing Agendas Matter to Interpretation

The indictment’s counts rely on inferences about intent and linkage to another crime; while the documents and entries are enumerated, the precise legal characterization of the “other crime” and the strength of intent evidence are central contested points, and those legal determinations are what appellate courts must resolve beyond the factual charting of entries ^{[2] [5]}. Media and legal summaries emphasize different aspects depending on institutional agendas: prosecutorial materials stress the paperwork trail and election-impact theory, while defense filings and sympathetic outlets stress procedural errors, evidentiary limits, and constitutional claims; both frames rest on the same 34-count document set but evaluate intent, context, and legal thresholds through opposing lenses ^{[1] [3] [5]}. Readers should note that the counts are document-by-document allegations of falsified entries tied to reimbursements to Cohen, and the ultimate legal significance of those counts depends on appellate rulings about intent and whether the entries were indeed made to conceal another criminal act ^[2].