We all know a Manhattan jury recently convicted former President Donald Trump of 34 felony counts of creating false business records. But what, exactly, did Trump do to make him guilty of these crimes? We still don’t have answers to the most basic elements of these alleged crimes.

Trump was accused of falsifying business records to defraud … somebody, with the intent to further or cover up another crime. But we don’t know who he is accused of trying to defraud. We also don’t know what crime he’s accused of trying to cover up (sometimes it’s called the “predicate” crime). And we further don’t know what’s allegedly false about the 34 records mentioned in the indictment, jury instructions, and verdict. Really. Donald Trump stands convicted of 34 counts of making false statements in business records without the indictment, jury instructions, or the verdict identifying the allegedly false statements. Only the documents were identified, not the statements.

What you think you know comes from reporting on the trial and Bragg’s public statements. You think you know that Trump was accused of mischaracterizing payments to Stormy Daniels as “legal expenses.” The documents that count—the indictment, the jury instructions, and the verdict—all fail to address key factual issues that make up essential elements of the crime.

What was the statement that made each of the business records “false”?

Believe it or not, the indictment never explained why each of the charged business records were false. Each of the 34 counts repeats a nearly identical variation of the following allegation: 

The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about February 14, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, a Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust Account check and check stub dated February 14, 2017, bearing check number 000138, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.

So what did Trump write in this check stub that was “fraudulent?” In public statements, but not in the indictment, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg pushed the theory that any payment to Trump attorney Michael Cohen that Trump characterized as “legal fees” was false because he should have recorded those payments as … something else. But what? The indictment, the jury instructions, and the verdict form do not say. They are all silent on what the “truth” would have been in those business records.

Remember the Michael Flynn case? Although Flynn was not charged with the same crime, the elements of the charges against Flynn do resemble the elements the state should have proven against Trump. In Flynn’s case, the Justice Department alleged, 

During the interview, FLYNN falsely stated that he did not ask Russia’s Ambassador to the United States (“Russian Ambassador”) to refrain from escalating the situation in response to sanctions that the United States had imposed against Russia. FLYNN also falsely stated that he did not remember a follow-up conversation in which the Russian Ambassador stated that Russia had chosen to moderate its response to those sanctions as a result of FLYNN’s request. In truth and in fact, however, FLYNN then and there knew that the following had occurred:

Do you see the difference? After reading the Flynn indictment, you know exactly what he was accused of saying and why the government thinks it’s false. We can’t answer those questions in the Trump case, even after the verdict.

Who was the intended victim of the fraudulent business records?

The crime of false business records requires establishing an intent to defraud. So who was Trump trying to defraud? This question is never answered by any of the key documents: the verdict form, the jury instructions, or the indictment. The “false business records” were largely internal business records that were created after the 2016 election. If the business records were merely inaccurate and not intended to fool anyone, then that’s not a crime. Moreover, who did Trump intend to fool with these records? We don’t know and we have no indication that the jury had anyone in mind.

The answer changes depending on what theory the jury adopted. So, for example, if Trump was trying to help Cohen avoid taxes, the victim would be the New York Department of Revenue. If it was something to do with the election, then the Federal Election Commission or the voters might be the intended victim. But the judge never required the jury to identify a victim so we don’t have know who Trump is convicted of attempting to defraud.

What crime did Trump cover-up by making these “false” business records?

The judge gave the jury four different options to choose from in identifying the underlying crime: 1) violation of state election law, 2) violation of federal election law, 3) tax evasion, or 4) falsifying records. Each of these predicate crimes has numerous elements and involves competing interpretations of the evidence. Each theory potentially involves different “victims” and, thus, different witnesses. Additionally, the theories themselves are a parade of absurdities.

Every one of these records was made after the election and none were intentionally shared with the voters. Yet, somehow, they were created to influence an election that had already taken place?

Which theory did the jury pick? We don’t know. Did they all unanimously pick the same theory? We don’t know that, either. The predicate is clearly an essential element because without it there was no valid charge against Trump.

The judge did instruct the jury it must reach a unanimous verdict on every element of every charged crime. But the jury verdict form prevented us from knowing whether the jury agreed on every element of every crime. The judge never asked the jury to clearly identify the predicate crime. Different jurors may have voted guilty with completely different ideas about why Trump made the “false” business records.

Was the jury verdict really unanimous?

Several Trump supporters have pointed to the U.S. Supreme Court precedent, Richardson v. U.S. in which the Supreme Court ruled, “a jury in a federal criminal case cannot convict unless it unanimously finds that the Government has proved each element.” That doesn’t mean every fact in the case requires a unanimous verdict, just the “elements” which make up the charge. According to the Richardson court, an “element” is a fact that is listed in the crime itself. So, for example, in a burglary case the prosecutor must prove the defendant “entered” a building. But if he never resolves a dispute over the type of car involved or some other non-critical fact, it’s not a problem for his case.

Some legal “experts” seeking to defend this case have argued the jury does not need to spell out every nuance of the fact pattern in order to reach a sustainable conviction. But we are not talking about nuances here. We are talking about a case that is missing critical elements of the charges: The false statements, the predicate crime, and the intended victim. They’re all issues addressed by the criminal statute and essential to the state’s burden of proof.

If this sounds unfair, the founding fathers agreed which is why the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution requires that the defendant be, “informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.” That’s supposed to happen before a trial. In this case, Trump learned of the four alternate theories for his guilt after his attorney rested his case. And he never learned precisely what the original falsehood was he was accused of making in the business records.

It has been amazing to see the number of very smart people who stumble over explaining exactly what Trump was convicted of doing. It’s also mystifying why Trump’s attorneys don’t scream about these issues to anyone who will listen. The experts can hold forth discussing alternative theories that came up in the reporting, but there’s nothing in either the verdict or the indictment that answers these key questions. Again, what on earth was Trump convicted of doing?