(CNSNews.com) - "It's shocking. I cannot believe that this district attorney did this to the country, to indict a former president based on this kind of theory," former Trump impeachment manager David Schoen told Fox News Tuesday night.
Schoen spoke after Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg indicted President Donald Trump on 43 felony counts of falsifying business records -- without specifying what underlying crime allowed him to elevate those misdemeanors to felonies.
"I also read the 12-page statement of facts that accompanies the indictment, and it only raises more questions," Schoen said. "The indictment is clearly is deficient from a due process perspective.
"Mr. Bragg said, well, they'll produce their evidence at trial -- this is all they have to do, is track the language of the statute. Absolutely not true.
"The 5th and 6th Amendments require, as a matter of due process, right to council, et cetera, that they be told what exactly they're charged with. The target crime here is absent from every count of the indictment.
“And you read the statement of facts -- they imply it could be a tax charge, it could be a federal charge, could be a state charge. The defenses would be different for each of those. The defense cannot prepare a defense unless this is fleshed out in a bill of particulars.
"And so that's another thing that's going to be filed here in addition to the three motions that we discussed earlier."
"But I'll tell you this -- this indictment opens so many opportunities to the defense for broad discovery. If you take, for example, the Pomeranz book that talks about the deliberations --ordinarily those things would be off limits, the deliberations within a prosecutor's office. But Pomeranz tells you how Michael Cohen's credibility was questioned by Bragg, by Ms. Lozano the chief of the economic crimes division, bureau, over there.
"So I think all of that stuff is opened up...This case offers tremendous opportunities for creative lawyers."
(Mark Pomerantz, hired by the Manhattan District Attorney's office in 2021 to investigate Donald Trump, ended up quitting his job when Alvin Bragg, the newly elected D.A., refused to authorize the prosecution that Pomerantz wanted to pursue. Pomerantz explains the internal deliberations in the District Attorney's office in his book titled "People vs. Donald Trump: An Inside Account.")
What other crimes?
At a news conference following Trump's arraignment, Alvin Bragg told reporters, "It is a felony to falsify business records with intent to defraud and intent to conceal another crime. That is exactly what this case is about -- 34 false statements made to cover up other crimes.
"These are felony crimes in New York State, no matter who you are. We cannot and will not normalize serious criminal conduct," said Bragg, who is known for being lenient on other accused criminals.
A reporter asked Bragg to specify what crimes Trump committed beyond the alleged falsification of business records.
"Let me say as an initial matter that the indictment doesn't specify it, because the law does not so require," Bragg said.
"In my remarks, I mentioned a couple of laws, which I will highlight again now.
The first is New York State election law, which makes it a crime to conspire to promote a candidacy by unlawful means.
"I further indicated a number of unlawful means, including additional false statements, including statements that were planned to be made to tax authorities.
"I also noted the federal election law cap on contribution limits."
'Pathetic'
Joining Schoen on the Fox News set Tuesday night, Sol Wisenberg, an attorney who specializes in white collar crime, faulted Alvin Bragg for refusing to tell reporters what specific underlying crime elevated the charges against Trump to felonies.
Bragg's explanation "isn't an adequate response," Wisenberg said.
"[A]t a minimum, there will be a bill of particulars so he will have to do that before too long as a due process matter. And I did see -- I did watch his whole press conference, and I thought the whole press conference was pathetic.
"I've been saying for quite a few days now, don't focus on the number of counts, focus on whether or not there's any real substance there. Is this something that is substantively and procedurally weak? Does it seem like relatively minor crimes or not? And I was frankly shocked at how weak this indictment was."
Wisenberg noted that multiple counts against Trump are related to the same transaction on the same date: "This indictment could have been rendered in far fewer counts," he said.
"And Mr. Bragg did say, when questioned further about what law was being violated, he mentioned a state law that you can't conspire by unlawful means to promote or harm a candidate.
"Well, first of all, if they're talking about violating federal election law...that's ridiculous. There's no violation of federal election campaign law. But that statute that he cited is a misdemeanor, that Mr. Bragg cited, conspiring to promote a candidate by unlawful means. It's a misdemeanor.
"So he's using a misdemeanor, boot-strapping it into a felony, by saying that it was the false entries were to obstruct another misdemeanor, and the whole indictment reads that way. I was just -- I was shocked."