[The_Media_never_lie]

So just what is the crime? Curiously, the prosecution have not even announced what it is that they are trying Trump for! This would appear to be unheard of in any court of law, either here or in the US.

Is this really true?

[gcparent]

175.10 ???

[lepton]

Yes. They have not specified the crime that they claim the payments are intended to support, nor what the correct payment code should be. They have implied some innuendo - most of which is also legal - but they have not cited any underlying crime. AG Bragg has actually directly said that by the law he is using he doesn’t have to, and the judge has let him get away with that.

[CraigEsq]

So just what is the crime? Curiously, the prosecution have not even announced what it is that they are trying Trump for! This would appear to be unheard of in any court of law, either here or in the US.

Is this really true?

---

Not really. The prosecution identified four statutes that could be the underlying crime. In Trump’s motion to dismiss, the judge threw out one of them. But they prosecution never to my knowledge exactly which one of the three they were intending to prove.