More than a month after the unprecedented indictment of Donald Trump, Alvin Bragg still refuses to say what crimes the former president actually committed even as the judge sets a March trial date.
Days before Trump's virtual hearing Tuesday, Bragg blew off a request from his lawyers for more detailed information, saying he has "more than sufficient information to prepare his defense" and is not entitled to anything more.
On paper, Bragg is charging Trump with "falsifying business records" for hush money payments to porn star Stormy Daniels, but Bragg has yet to explain where the crime comes into play.
Even liberal observers have balked at the unusual legal theory behind Bragg's case, which alleges Trump committed felonies by concealing unspecified other crimes.
Bragg has hinted those other crimes could be election-related or tax-related, but he didn't specify what they are in his strange indictment, which he paired with an unusual "statement of facts" that only further muddled the case.
There's also the little matter of jurisdiction: Bragg has gestured at federal election law violations despite being a state prosecutor.
In a defiantly obscure 10-page filing, Bragg insisted that he is not required to "identify any particular crime that the defendant intended to commit or conceal, and defendant is not entitled to such information in a bill of particulars."
"The 15-page, 34-count Indictment and 13-page Statement of Facts fully inform defendant of the nature of the charges against him, including by specifying the business records defendant allegedly falsified and by describing the details of his allegedly unlawful scheme," Bragg said.
Bragg said he will start making discovery evidence available to Trump once he is informed of the terms of a protective order.
At a video conference Tuesday, judge Juan Merchan warned Trump of penalties if he violates the order, which restricts Trump from discussing the evidence publicly or seeing it without lawyers present.
The judge insisted he wasn't placing a gag order on Trump when his lawyers raised the First Amendment.
“It is certainly not my intention in any way to impede his right to campaign for president of the United States. He’s free to do just about anything that doesn’t violate the terms of this protective order," the judge said.
The judge set a trial date for March 25, which will likely interfere with Trump's ability to campaign during the Republican primaries.
How is it possible that a prosecutor can try an American president, who is also his party's frontrunner in the next presidential election, and not say what the alleged crime is? As usual, it seems the normal laws don't apply to Trump.