I have to give you credit. So far, you're the only legal person I've read in support of (or at least attempting to defend) the indictment. Even the New York Times' is publishing stuff like this:

nytimes.com - Trump bragg indictment
web.archive.org - Trump bragg indictment

The 34-count indictment ' which more accurately could be described as 34 half-indictments ' was a disaster. It was a setback for the rule of law and established a dangerous precedent for prosecutors. The case appears so weak on its legal and jurisdictional basis that a state judge might dismiss the case and mitigate that damage. More likely, the case is headed to federal court for a year, where it could lose on the grounds of federal pre-emption ' only federal courts have jurisdiction over campaign finance and filing requirements.

Of course it wouldn't be the Times without blaming Trump:
Mr. Trump's opponents react to his provocations and norms violations by escalating and accelerating the erosion of legal norms.

...but then again, sentences like that are probably why the editors published this.

It continues:
What, in practice, is the meaning of 'intent to defraud'? If a business record is internal, it is not obvious how a false filing could play a role in defrauding if other entities likely would not rely upon it and be deceived by it. Even if one can argue that the statute should apply to internal records, this is not the ideal time to test a seemingly novel (or even a very rare) application.

The "intent to defraud" is how Bragg manufactured his 34 half-felonies, to adopt Prof. Shugerman's term.

Oh, and for Shrewds wondering why Trump can't be tried for a state election:
The Federal Election Campaign Act has a broad pre-emption clause: 'the provisions of this Act, and of rules prescribed under this Act, supersede and pre-empt any provision of state law with respect to election to federal office.' New York State law confirms that state 'filing requirements and the expenditure, contribution and receipt limits' under state law 'shall not apply' if there is a federal requirement and a federal filing (in other words, they don't apply to federal elections).

Look. I get that you guys absolutely loathe Donald Trump and are convinced that he's guilty of SOMETHING. I feel the same way about Hillary! Clinton and Joe Biden (both of whom are most definitely guilty of serious crimes themselves, but that's neither here nor there). If you think you can make a case to lock Trump up, then do without opening the Gates Of Hell and trashing literally 200 years of prosecutorial norms in your quest.

In other words, let it go. Otherwise you might not like the counter reaction when it comes.