1. It's not remotely clear that a. the records were false or b. that Trump knew anything about the attempt to falsify them. It's not obvious how to classify an NDA expense, and the idea that Trump - who was President at the time of the alleged falsification - was paying attention to how expenses were being recorded in drop-down menus on accounting software strains belief.

2. This is the first time that falsification was charged for records *that were not expected to be seen outside the organization*. Falsification is normally charged alongside fraud cases where the falsification is in service of, say, getting a bank to issue a loan it wouldn't otherwise issue. Here there was no fraud. No one was relying on these records. There is no victim.

Again, I think you're the victim of Gell-Mann amnesia here. You are reading the media and believing them when they tell you that this New York prosecution is legitimate. That same media tells everyone else that you are a transphobe.