It's up to the prosecutor. I doubt that Bragg has commented on it publicly.
In my
extremely limited experience with criminal law, in situations such as this the 34 checks/entries would typically be wrapped up into one or perhaps two counts because the individual acts all relate to the same scheme or transaction (i.e. does it really matter in terms of criminal culpability if someone makes one big payment or splits it into 10 smaller payments?).
I hate to go there (politics) but it does seem that Bragg charged 34 counts (at least in part) for public effect. I can't read Bragg's mind but the appearance is that he was worried about getting voted out of office if he didn't go after Trump full bore. In other words, the politics for Bragg are mostly local. I suspect Bragg concluded that a conviction was unlikely to have much negative effect on Trump the national election, but Bragg wanted to keep his job.
I'm not especially bothered by it though. Trump engaged in the conduct, and he took his chances. The prosecutor is not required to pull his punches.
It's probably a moot point because Trump is unlikely to be sentenced to prison:
>>>Six legal experts - including defense lawyers and former prosecutors - told Reuters it was rare for people without criminal histories - like Trump - who are charged solely with falsification of business records to be sentenced to prison time in New York, with punishments such as fines being more common.
But they said such a sentence would not be impossible, and cautioned that it was too early to predict what punishment Trump could face if convicted.<<<
Having said that, Trump's public attacks on the judicial system are dumb. Judges have a lot of discretion when it comes to sentencing, and Trump's obvious lack of contrition could influence the judge.
