So that this isn’t eclipsing everything else in your feed, here’s an attempt at a (very partial! and growing!) compilation of pieces focused on analysis of the actual charges.  This is, of course, in addition to Rick’s Slate piece already blogged here…

• A CNN team (Tierney Sneed et al.): “Takeaways and key lines from the indictment against Donald Trump”  (with a rundown of the alleged facts and their context)
• Carrie Johnson for NPR: “In a historic first, former President Donald Trump is charged with 34 felony counts”  (much of the same)
• A team at the WSJ: “A Guide to Donald Trump’s Legal Perils”  (with a rundown of the other lawsuits and investigations, supplementing the ongoing Just Security compilation)
• Karen Friedman Agnifilo and Norm Eisen in an oped in the NYT: “We Finally Know the Case Against Trump, and It Is Strong”  (falsifying business records isn’t “unchartered”)
• Ryan Goodman and company at Just Security: “The Broad Scope of ‘Intent to Defraud’ in the New York Crime of Falsifying Business Records” (digging into fraudulent intent)
• Charlie Savage for the NYT: “A Surprise Accusation Bolsters a Risky Case Against Trump” (driving a state felony enhancement based on state tax fraud allegations)
• Joel Abrams for the Conversation: “Forget Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen — it’s accountants who could seal Trump’s fate” (tracing proof of the tax allegations)
• Ian Millhiser for Vox: “The dubious legal theory at the heart of the Trump indictment, explained”  (driving a state felony enhancement using an underlying federal campaign finance crime)
• Ruth Marcus in an opinion piece at WaPo: “The Trump indictment is a dangerous leap on the highest of wires”  (striking similar themes)
• Camilo Montoya-Galvez for CBS: “Legal experts say Trump felony charges will be difficult to prove”  (same)
• Andrew McCarthy in the National Review: “No, Cohen’s Guilty Plea Does Not Prove Trump Committed Campaign-Finance Crimes” (discussing one element of proof on the campaign finance charge)
• Mark Joseph Stern in Slate: “The Trump Indictment Is Not the Slam-Dunk Case Democrats Wanted”  (same, but also mentioning driving a state felony enhancement using the state law against conspiring to promote a candidate’s election illegally)
• Dan McLaughlin in the National Review: “Statute of Limitations Problem” and “Federal Felony Hook Problem” (talking about … well, you guessed it)
• Josh Gerstein for Politico: “The new revelations — and key questions — in the Trump indictment”  (including whether the business records are actually business records)
• Noah Feldman in an oped at Bloomberg: “Trump Indictment Is a Risky Bet for New York and the Nation”  (arguing the timing could make it more difficult – practically if not legally – for prosecutors with other investigations into the former president to bring charges that stick)
• Jay Weaver for the Miami Herald: “Records, not hush money, key to Trump charges. Making case in court poses challenges.”  (pointing out, inter alia, that Trump attorney Joe Tacopina once had a very different take on the incident’s criminal exposure) 
• John Moritz for the Connecticut Mirror: “Rowland prosecutor: Ex-CT governor’s conviction bears similarities to case against Trump”  (comparing this prosecution to something other than the Edwards prosecution)

• And Erin Mansfield at USA Today points out that Trump is, of course, using a fake mugshot to fundraise off of the arraignment.
  
• By the way, I think I’ve seen a few takes wondering whether we’d be seeing charges like these if Trump were just a failed congressional candidate instead.  A throwback from last month: maybe?