has it? the case is shaky to say the least. there's a long way to go before "Justice" is served, 
or not. 
recall that Cyrus Vance Jr as a federal prosecutor in NYC declined to bring this case. 
the FEC reviewed this case and found no campaign violation and  declined to bring this case.
the DOJ reviewed this case and found no campaign violation and  declined to bring this case.
butt Alvin Bragg thinks he has a case. read below how solid his case really is .. 
i'd recommend not cooking any victory omelettes just yet. i'd wait till the conviction egg is laid or ya might be eating a nothing  omelette 
Manhattan DA Insiders Worry the Trump Hush Money Case Is Weak Sauce
https://www.yahoo.com/news/manhattan...083705197.html
 252 Jose Pagliery
Wed, March 29, 2023 at 3:37 AM CDT

This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is sized %1%2.

 Photo Illustration by Elizabeth Brockway/The Daily Beast/Reuters
 
The  indictment that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is  currently  seeking against former President Donald Trump—over his  payment to  silence a porn star about their sexual affair—is based on a  crime that  was so flimsy it was never viewed as a standalone criminal  case,  according to three attorneys who have worked on that  investigation.
These  insiders spoke to The Daily Beast on the condition of anonymity,   because they are not authorized to discuss the ongoing criminal   investigation.
A grand jury may soon decide whether to indict  Trump for faking  business records and dodging campaign finance laws when  he used his  company—the Trump Organization—and his personal  “fixer”—Michael  Cohen—to quietly pay hush money to the adult film star  Stormy Daniels  to keep the revelation from derailing his 2016  presidential campaign.  Journalists from around the globe are now staking  out a courthouse in  downtown New York City, awaiting the possible  arrest of the former  American president.
it's Bragg's contention Trump had to pay off Daniels  with campaign funds simply because he was running for President.  interesting claim since the FEC (Federal Election Commission) determined  years ago there was no campaign law violation. 
What’s the Holdup With the Trump Indictment?
But  that criminal probe is just a small slice of a much more expansive   criminal investigation into Trump’s lies to banks, insurance companies,   and government agencies.
Bragg, who inherited the investigation  from his predecessor, Cy Vance  Jr., shut down the wider operation soon  after entering the office—and  only recently revived this narrow portion  as a single case.
His decision to bring back what has been deemed  the “zombie” case  surprised several insiders who have been briefed on  the various  iterations of the Stormy Daniels case over the years.
“The  Stormy case was the easiest, the most straightforward, but had the  risk  of being nothing more than a misdemeanor. The business fraud case  had  more heft, but was complex and sprawling, and much more difficult.  There  was never any discussion of breaking them apart,” one source  told The  Daily Beast.
What initially drew prosecutors to the case was the  way the Trump  Organization paid back Cohen in separate checks broken up  over a year,  engaged in a monthly cover-up using this private business  while Trump  was in the White House.
so if Trump had paid Cohen as a lump sump it's fine, payments are not? 
But New York County  prosecutors never considered pursuing the  hush money case by itself,  because, for one thing, investigators on the  DA’s Trump team couldn’t  even agree whether Trump committed a serious  crime.
Faking  business records is merely a misdemeanor in New York, and three  sources  said Vance wouldn’t greenlight an indictment that would involve  a  historic law enforcement action against a former president—all to  land  Trump less than a year at the city’s notoriously violent jail on  Rikers  Island.
Possible Trump Indictment Delayed After Grand Jury Meeting Gets Called Off
Still,  they determined this particular criminal charge could be bumped  up to a  felony if business records were faked to commit or hide a 
separate  crime—a fact prosecutors wrestled with for months. 
A  recent tell-all  memoir by an ex-prosecutor who previously led that  team, Mark Pomerantz,  goes into vivid detail explaining how he had to  resort to building a  “creative legal theory” to pursue the case.
One version entailed  this local DA attaching the state charges to the federal crime; after  all, the whole idea was that 
Trump  had failed to properly log the hush  money payment publicly in closely  scrutinized reports filed to the  Federal Election Commission.  But chaining state-level business records  charges to an alleged federal  crime would open Pandora’s Box, according  to one source, because doing  so would conspicuously highlight how this  should have been a federal  case instead.
did i mention the FEC determined there was no election law violation?
And that was quite the  risk, because the U.S. Attorney's Office for the  Southern District of  New York had already chosen not to indict Trump.
Federal  prosecutors aggressively went after Cohen and even categorized  Trump as  “Individual-1,” but they stopped there. The feds gave immunity  deals to  get incriminating information from the Trump Organization  chief  financial officer who cut the checks, Allen Weisselberg, and the 
National Enquirer media executive who helped broker the hush money deal, David Pecker.
“The  hush money case had no exact state charge. It should have  been the  feds,” said a second person who spoke to The Daily Beast.
Assistant  district attorneys and their outside advisers were also  unclear about  whether this novel approach would even hold up in court.
“DANY  would have to argue that the intent to commit or conceal a  federal crime  had converted the falsification of the records into a  felony. No  appellate court in New York had ever upheld (or rejected)  this  interpretation of the law,” Pomerantz wrote in 
People vs. Donald Trump: An Inside Account. “There was a big risk that felony charges would be dismissed before a jury could even consider them.”
The  DA team’s second version was even more of a stretch. This one  involved  attaching the business records charge to a bonkers underlying  crime:  viewing Stormy Daniels’ attempts to sell her story on the eve  of the  2016 election as her trying to extort Trump. In his book,  Pomerantz  acknowledges this is “a somewhat awkward construction” that  would act as  if “Trump was, in effect, a blackmail victim.”  That would turn Trump’s  payment into money laundering, he figured. But  the “soft-core extortion”  theory, as Pomerantz called it, was hoisted  on its own petard.
Trump ‘Committed Crimes,’ Prosecutor Wrote Before Quitting Manhattan DA’s Office 
“Legally,  the hush money payment had not become dirty money until  [Stormy  Daniels] received it, so neither Cohen nor Trump had committed  money  laundering by sending it,” Pomerantz wrote in his book.
The book  says Vance twice commissioned outside lawyers—a rare step  that’s nearly  unheard of for such a law enforcement office—to research  the matter.  Vance decided against any criminal charges in late 2019 and  revisited  the decision in early 2021, but he ultimately decided  against it.
The  final nail in the coffin, though, seemed to come when Bragg  inherited  the case at the start of 2022. In his book, Pomerantz recalls  a Feb. 9,  2022, meeting during which Bragg said he “could not see a  world” in  which he would use Cohen as a witness to indict Trump. On  Tuesday, a  spokeswoman for the office said that four people who were  present at the  meeting disputed that recollection.
Joe Tacopina, one of Trump’s  defense lawyers on this case, told  The Daily Beast he wasn’t surprised  that lawyers who have long been  close to this investigation have their  reservations about making the  Stormy Daniels matter a standalone  criminal case. “I’ve spoken to two  FEC chairmen. It’s not even close. I  don’t understand how they could do  this. It’ll eventually get tossed  aside,” Tacopina said.
did i mention the FEC determined there was no election law violation?
However, skeptics could view Bragg’s recent  decision to hire a top  attorney at the Department of Justice as a way  to overcome concerns  that the state case can’t hold up on its own—or is  somehow weakened by  the DOJ’s decision to not charge Trump even after  leaving office. Matt  Colangelo, who left an extremely prominent position  as the nation’s  acting associate attorney general, previously worked on  fraud  investigations against Trump at the New York Attorney General’s  Office.
And Bragg has apparently come around on Cohen, making him a  key witness  before the grand jury that’s poised to indict Trump any day  now.
Still, these three sources cheered on Bragg for taking on  the case—and  noted that this could merely be the first iteration in a  larger  investigation.
Karen Friedman Agnifilo, who served as the  previous DA’s top deputy for  years, said the Stormy Daniels case merits  more serious consideration  than it has received so far.
“I  disagree with people who think this is not an important case. This  was  Donald Trump’s first attempt at interfering in an election. He did  it in  2016 and again in 2020. In terms of what it represents, I think  it’s  significant,” she said, noting that the DA was smart to move on  this  first because the statute of limitations might run out in May.
“The  11 payments to Michael Cohen—then recording false  information in the  business records—were done by a sitting president  who was in the Oval  Office at the time. I don’t know how anyone could  view this as not  serious,” she said.
once again Bragg contends Trump should have paid  Cohen via the Trump campaign. for a personal matter. the fact that  Daniels threatened to go public simply because Trump was running for  president is extortion. it doesn't make it a campaign expense. 
but don't take my word for it. take the word of  the FEC and the DOJ who each separately determined there was no campaign  law violation and thus Bragg's basis of record keeping fraud .. is  fraudulent.