Why Trump was charged 36 bogus felonies
Executive summary
The factual record from major outlets and the Manhattan DA shows Donald Trump was charged in New York with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records tied to alleged hush-money payments around the 2016 campaign, not “36,” and those counts were prosecuted as felonies because prosecutors said they concealed other crimes and affected voters’ information [1] [2] [3]. Claims that there were “36 bogus felonies” reflect political rhetoric, count conflation across multiple indictments, and contested legal theories about intent and presidential acts — all contested in court and in public debate [4] [5].
1. The indictment’s legal theory and why prosecutors elevated falsified records to felonies
Manhattan prosecutors alleged Trump falsified business records repeatedly to conceal a scheme of hush‑money payments that they say hid damaging information from voters; because the falsifications were intended to conceal other crimes, the office charged first‑degree falsifying of business records — a felony — rather than the usual misdemeanor, arguing the entries were part of a broader unlawful scheme [1] [3].
2. What the count number really is — and why “36” floats around
Contemporaneous reporting and the DA’s announcement identified 34 counts in the New York case; other reporting catalogs multiple separate indictments against Trump across jurisdictions with different totals (including federal cases that at times listed 37 or other counts), and conflating those separate tallies explains why some observers cite varying numbers such as 36 or 37 [1] [4] [2].
3. Why defenders call the charges “bogus”: political framing and legal challenges
Trump and his allies framed the New York case as political persecution and attacked the credibility of the star witness, Michael Cohen, and the proffered motive tying payments to the campaign; defense lawyers also argued material used at trial related to official presidential acts and later pointed to the Supreme Court’s immunity rulings as undercutting evidence — positions reported and advanced in appeals [5] [6].
4. Why prosecutors and many legal analysts disagree that the counts are “bogus”
Prosecutors and reporting explained their case with documentary entries, testimony about payments, and a legal theory connecting the falsified entries to an intent to conceal other wrongdoing before an election; journalists and legal analysts who covered the trial laid out how those facts supported jury instructions that led to convictions in the New York trial [2] [6].
5. The role of sentencing and post‑trial maneuvers in shaping perceptions
Even after a jury verdict, the unusual procedural outcomes — including a judge’s later decisions about sentencing, appeals invoking presidential immunity, and public claims that charges were dropped or adjourned — have fed narratives on both sides; fact checks noted inaccurate social‑media claims that the felonies were simply “dropped,” underscoring how procedural developments are often misreported or weaponized politically [7] [8].
6. The politics beneath the headlines: agendas, messaging, and public interpretation
Republican and Trump campaign messaging quickly labeled the convictions “bogus” and a political witch‑hunt to rally supporters, while prosecutors framed the charges as straightforward white‑collar work to protect voters’ right to honest information — two competing frames with distinct political incentives that reporters documented [2] [1].
7. What reporting does not resolve and why honest uncertainty remains
Public reporting establishes what was charged, the legal theory, the trial outcome in New York, and how other indictments add up numerically, but it cannot adjudicate the normative claim that the charges are “bogus” — that is a legal and political determination that depends on appellate rulings, prosecutorial discretion, and readers’ interpretations of motive and fairness, topics still contested in the courts and public debate [2] [4].