It's just an opinion piece but Alan Dershowitz makes a compelling argument as to why this is such a weak case. But what does he know about the law. He was only a Harvard Law professor from 1964 until 2013. Not much legal background there but he still makes some good points.
Trump Indictment Case Looks Like a Weak Exercise in Creative Prosecution | Opinion
ALAN DERSHOWITZ , EMERITUS PROFESSOR OF LAW, HARVARD LAW SCHOOL
ON 3/31/23 AT 9:56 AM EDT
When a district attorney who ran as a Democrat and promised to "get" Donald Trump indicts the candidate running for president against the incumbent head of his party, he had better have a slam dunk case. Although we don't know exactly what the Manhattan grand jury indicted Trump for, it seems likely, based on what we know, that this is a very weak case which would never have been brought against anyone else.
If this indictment is based on the hush money paid to a former porn star and the manner by which it was recorded in corporate records, this may be one of the weakest cases in my experience.
It is a stale case that appears to be beyond the statute of limitations. The DA may argue that Trump was out of the state continuously during the period of limitations, thus tolling—that is, pausing—the statute of limitations, because the former president couldn't be indicted while out of state.
But Trump was indicted while he was in Florida, so he could have been indicted any time over the past 7 years. Why wasn't he?
Previous prosecutors decided not to indict Trump based on the facts available to them. Has new evidence been discovered?
www.newsweek.com