As every armchair legal scholar following the saga of the indictment of former President Donald Trump has come to understand, the charge of falsifying business records in New York state is a misdemeanor that rises to the level of a felony when done to conceal a crime.

That led many observers who saw to a 34-count indictment against Trump that never hinted at that other crime to respond along the lines of the famous 1984 Wendy’s commercial used to help sink Democrat Gary Hart’s presidential chances: "Where’s the beef?”

Commentator Dan Bongino went on Fox News to ponder the question, "What kind of a clown joker wrote this thing?”

.@dbongino: 1% of me thought Alvin Bragg couldn’t be this dumb but I read the indictment & it was even worse than we thought. They made this whole thing up. If you blacked out Trump’s name, any legal professional would read it & say ‘What kind of a clown joker wrote this thing?’ pic.twitter.com/93O0XzdeiV

— Jesse Watters (@JesseBWatters) April 5, 2023

Many on Twitter also noted as a "curious omission" the lack of any particular law that was violated.

The indictment is legally insufficient on its face. New York state law does not make it a crime to influence an election. Federal law does not make it a crime either. Maybe that's why no law is actually cited in the indictment. Nor are the facts sufficient. #TrumpArraignment https://t.co/CbOj27v41v

— Robert Barnes (@barnes_law) April 4, 2023

What exactly could be the second crime they tried to conceal by Cohen paying hush money with his own funds to a porn star who now owes Trump thousands of dollars bc of losing lawsuits against him? If it's campaign finance, remember that the FEC refused to go after Trump for it.

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) April 4, 2023

Alvin Bragg is a national embarrassment. This is ludicrous prima facie.

— JD Rucker (@JDRucker) April 4, 2023

John Bolton on Alvin Bragg’s indictment: “This is even weaker than I feared it would be and I think it's easily subject to being dismissed or a quick acquittal for Trump.”pic.twitter.com/K8Cbw8d6Ru

— ALX 🇺🇸 (@alx) April 4, 2023

Barr said on Fox News there is nothing here. Jarrett says same thing. Where's the crime??? It's a copy and paste 34 times. This is a bad joke! And they want to start trial Jan 2024 in the middle of campaign season?! Bragg needs replaced.

— Dele (@deb_helf) April 4, 2023

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg did not explain the indictment.

"I'm not going to go into our deliberative process on what was brought. The charges that were brought were the ones that were brought. The evidence and the law is the basis for those decisions," Bragg told reporters Tuesday.

"The indictment doesn't specify because the law does not so require," he said.

Made up crimes

— Joe Wallin (@joewallin) April 4, 2023

Bragg was just asked during press questions what the specific law is and claimed he doesn't have to cite a law!

— Maria Lowndes Sevely (@mlsline) April 4, 2023

Great catch. It’s hard to include a violation of the law when there isn’t one.

— Murray 🇺🇸 (@Rothbard1776) April 4, 2023

In castigating Bragg in an opinion piece for Fox News, legal scholar Jonathan Turley noted that the New York prosecutor "insisted that he will convict Trump of the ‘crime to promote a [political] candidacy through unlawful means.’ He insists that he will prove ‘attempts to violate state and federal election laws.'"

"The indictment seems to address the lack of legal precedent with a lack of specificity on the underlying 'secondary' felony," Turley wrote.

"Bragg has done nothing more than replicated the same flawed theory dozens of times," he said. "This is where math and legal meet. If you multiply any number by zero, it is still zero."

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.