The historic case against Donald Trump faces a number of legal hurdles if it is to result in the first conviction of a US president on criminal charges, legal experts said Wednesday. As to be expected, Trump’s attorneys dismissed the 34-count indictment unsealed on Tuesday at the high-profile arraignment in New York of the 76-year-old real estate tycoon. “It was a little disappointing, a little bit of a relief quite frankly to see that indictment,” Joe Tacopina told NBC’s “Today” show. “This case is going to fall on its merits.” Even some of Trump’s fiercest critics were not impressed with the case brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat who has been accused by Trump and other Republicans of waging a “political witch hunt.” Trump’s former national security adviser John Bolton, who is now one of his most outspoken foes, told CNN the indictment was “even weaker than I feared it would be.” “Speaking as someone who very strongly does not want Donald Trump to get the Republican presidential nomination, I’m extraordinarily distressed by this document,” Bolton said. “I think it’s easily subject to being dismissed or a quick acquittal for Trump.” The indictment charges Trump with 34 counts of falsifying business records over a $130,000 hush money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 presidential election. Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen arranged the payment to Daniels and then was reimbursed by Trump in installments, which accounts for the 34 charges. The payments rise from the level of a misdemeanor to a felony because, the indictment says, they were allegedly made with “intent to commit another crime.” The indictment, however, fails to specify what the other crime was and that’s where things may get tricky. At a press conference, Bragg said the payments were part of a scheme orchestrated by Trump, Cohen and others to “suppress negative information” and boost his election chances. “The scheme violated New York election law, which makes it a crime to conspire to promote a candidacy by unlawful means,” he said. It’s legally questionable, however, whether Trump could be found to have violated New York election law while he was running for president and not for a position in the state. Ellen Yaroshefsky, a law professor at Hofstra University, said prosecutors may be hard-pressed “to prove that the false business records were with intent to influence the election.”