Lawyer: Trump will not accept plea deal and plans to file ‘substantial legal challenges’ to indictment

Former President Donald Trump will not accept a plea deal in the indictment brought by a Manhattan grand jury but does plan to file “substantial legal challenges” to the indictment, his attorney Joe Tacopina said.

“President Trump will not take a plea deal in this case. It’s not gonna happen,” Tacopina said in an interview with NBC News on Friday.

“I don’t know if it’s gonna make it to trial because we have substantial legal challenges that we have to … front before we get to that point,” Tacopina said when asked if he expects to take the case to trial.

Trump will “absolutely” voluntarily surrender to Manhattan law enforcement, the defense attorney said, adding the former president is “not going to hole up in Mar-a-Lago.”

Logistics are currently being worked, he said.

Meanwhile, Trump attorney Jim Trusty said Friday he expects that the former president’s legal team will file motions to dismiss his indictment before a trial could potentially get underway. 

“I would think in very short order, you’ll see a motion to dismiss — or several motions to dismiss — talking about this kind of impossible theory of stacking a federal crime into a state misdemeanor, statute of limitations issues and very importantly, the intent to defraud. That’s an element of these false record keeping charges. That’s just not present here,” Trusty told CNN This Morning. 

The lawyer said he did not know “about the exact timing” as there isn’t a case number yet but he noted that it will “be soon.”

“I think this will be something you can expect in days or weeks, not weeks or months,” he added.

Tacopina told Good Morning America that the former president “will not be put in handcuffs.”  

Responding to CNN reporting that Trump has been charged on more than 30 counts related to business fraud, Tacopina said he does not know the nature of the charges against Trump or how many there are, but added, “If it’s correct, it means they’ve taken each transaction, each check, each payment, each entry and made a separate charge.”

Tacopina said he does not know when the charges will be unsealed but suggested it “might likely be Tuesday.”

President Joe Biden repeatedly declined to comment on the indictment of former President Donald Trump as he departed the White House this morning.

Remember: There has been no statement from Biden following the news of the indictment. No comment came from the White House and there is little evidence that public posture will change any time soon, even as officials acknowledge they will be closely monitoring any security issues that may develop.

“He’s the president, not a legal analyst,” one Democrat in regular contact with the White House said. “He has an administration to run.”

Biden’s initial silence in the wake of Trump’s indictment isn’t a surprise. While officials inside the West Wing were as surprised as the rest of the country by the news, there was no scramble to prepare anything to release publicly.

Instead, Biden faces a convergence of two clear, if unofficial, animating principles of his first two years in office: don’t engage in ongoing legal cases and don’t get distracted by issues that don’t have a tangible effect on Americans.

The approach is designed, at least in part, to keep the administration’s focus on its priorities and agenda. But the unmistakably clear contrast it creates with Biden’s predecessor is neither subtle nor unintentional as a political message.

Read more here.

In the wake of a Manhattan grand jury’s historic decision to indict Donald Trump, the former president and some other prominent Republicans, including Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, have invoked liberal billionaire George Soros in their attacks on Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. Trump claimed in a statement that Bragg was “hand-picked and funded by George Soros.”

Soros, a longtime supporter of Democratic campaigns, various liberal causes and prosecutors who favor criminal justice reform, has been a frequent target of antisemitic conspiracy theories painting the Jewish philanthropist as a puppetmaster behind various US and international events.

Here are the facts:

Donations to a PAC that supported Bragg

Bragg — a graduate of Harvard Law School, a former federal prosecutor and a former chief deputy attorney general for New York state — won the race for Manhattan district attorney in 2021, and his campaign was supported by the political action committee affiliated with Color of Change, a nonprofit advocacy group – co-founded in 2005 by Van Jones, who later became a CNN commentator – that promotes criminal justice reform among other racial justice causes. The Color of Change PAC, which has backed progressive district attorney candidates around the country, spent slightly over $500,000 supporting Bragg, Color of Change president and PAC spokesperson Rashad Robinson told CNN last week.

The Color of Change PAC has received significant funding from Soros, who has for years been a vocal advocate of criminal justice reform and of progressive district attorney candidates. Soros was the PAC’s biggest donor in the 2021-2022 period, PolitiFact has reported.

Soros spokesperson Michael Vachon told CNN last week: “Between 2016 and 2022, George Soros personally and Democracy PAC (a PAC to which Mr. Soros has contributed funds) have together contributed roughly $4 million to Color of Change’s PAC, including $1 million in May 2021. None of those funds were earmarked for Alvin Bragg’s campaign. George Soros and Alvin Bragg have never meet in person or spoken by telephone, email, Zoom etc. There has been no contact between the two.”

In addition to these donations to the PAC, CNBC reported that another Soros organization, the Open Society Policy Center, gave the main Color of Change nonprofit $7 million in 2021. Open Society spokesperson Thomas Watson told CNN in an email last week that the funding was a five-year grant and part of a publicly announced $220 million investment in racial justice efforts focused on Black-led organizations; Watson said the grant was “in support of (Color of Change’s) social welfare activities, and not earmarked for any specific work. The grant agreement stipulates, among other restrictions, that no OSPC funding can be used for partisan or political activities.”

As PolitiFact has noted, Soros’s son, Jonathan Soros, and Jonathan’s wife, Jennifer Allan Soros, each made $10,000 donations to Bragg’s campaign during the Democratic primary in April 2021. They had made smaller donations, totaling $450, earlier in the year.

Color of Change president says attacks are ‘antisemitic’ and ‘anti-Black’

Robinson said that attacks suggesting Bragg is a puppet of Soros, because of George Soros’s donations to the Color of Change PAC, are not only “antisemitic” but also “anti-Black.”

He said the attack is premised on the idea that “Black people are so incapable of having their own ideas about how to fight for justice” that the Black-led PAC could not have come up with its own strategies.

The ‘$1 million’ figure is exaggerated

Trump claimed last week that Soros spent more than $1 million on Bragg’s campaign, but that figure is inaccurate.

The Color of Change PAC did announce in May 2021, the month that Soros made a $1 million donation to the PAC, that it was planning to spend over $1 million on an independent expenditure campaign in support of Bragg’s candidacy. But the PAC paused the pro-Bragg spending after hearing an uncorroborated allegation against Bragg that it was not able to thoroughly investigate at the time because of legal restrictions on PACs communicating with candidates, Robinson said. It ended up spending about half of what it had planned, Robinson said, and kept the rest of Soros’s donation for other uses.

“Soros didn’t give us money to give to Alvin Bragg. Soros made a donation to Color of Change,” Robinson said.

The New York hush money payment investigation is not the only probe former President Donald Trump is facing.

Here’s an updated list of additional notable investigations, lawsuits and controversies:

Mar-a-Lago documents: Did Trump mishandle classified material?

Special counsel Jack Smith is overseeing the Justice Department’s criminal investigations into the retention of national defense information at Trump’s resort and into parts of the January 6, 2021, insurrection.

The Justice Department investigation continues into whether documents from the Trump White House were illegally mishandled when they were taken to Mar-a-Lago in Florida after he left office. A federal grand jury has interviewed potential witnesses regarding how Trump handled the documents.

The National Archives, charged with collecting and sorting presidential material, has previously said that at least 15 boxes of White House records were recovered from Mar-a-Lago, including some classified records.

Any unauthorized retention or destruction of White House documents could violate a criminal law that prohibits the removal or destruction of official government records, legal experts told CNN.

2020 election and January 6: US Justice Department

Smith’s purview also includes the period after Trump’s 2020 election loss to Joe Biden and leading up to the insurrection at the US Capitol.

As part of its investigation, the special counsel’s office has sought testimony from a number of key White House insiders, including former Vice President Mike Pence, Trump’s daughter Ivanka Trump and son-in-law Jared Kushner.

Aspects of the Justice Department’s probe include the use of so-called fake electors from states that Trump falsely claimed he had won, such as Georgia and Arizona.

Trump has been fighting to keep former advisers from testifying about certain conversations, citing executive and attorney-client privileges to keep information confidential or slow down criminal investigators.

2020 election: Efforts to overturn Georgia results

Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney Fani Willis oversaw a special grand jury investigating what Trump or his allies may have done in their efforts to overturn Biden’s victory in Georgia.

Willis, a Democrat, is considering bringing conspiracy and racketeering charges, CNN’s Don Lemon reported Monday.

The probe was launched in 2021 following Trump’s call that January with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, in which he pushed the Republican to “find” votes to overturn the election results.

The grand jury issued a report – which remains mostly under seal – that found there was no widespread voter fraud in the state and also suggested perjury charges be considered against some people who testified.

Overall, the grand jury recommended charges against more than a dozen people, the foreperson said in interviews last month.

Read about other investigations here.

Following the Manhattan grand jury’s indictment of former President Donald Trump, it’s worth looking at the mechanics of what’s going on in the legal system and how the process that applies to everyone is being applied to Trump.

We spoke to Elie Honig, a CNN legal analyst, former federal prosecutor and author of the new book, “Untouchable: How Powerful People Get Away With It,” for a refresher on how grand juries and indictments work. Part of our conversation, conducted by phone, is below:

Grand jury vs. trial jury

WOLF: What should we know about the difference between a grand jury and a trial jury?

HONIG: A grand jury decides to indict, meaning to charge a case. A trial jury determines guilt or non-guilt.

A grand jury is bigger, typically 23 members, and the prosecutor only needs the votes of a majority of a grand jury – as opposed to a trial jury, which has to be unanimous.

The standard of proof in a grand jury is lower than a trial jury. In a grand jury, you only have to show probable cause, meaning more likely than not. But of course in a trial setting, you need to show proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The other thing to know is a grand jury is an almost entirely one-sided process.

Usually the only people allowed in the room at all are the grand jurors, the prosecutors, the witnesses and a court reporter.

In some instances, including New York, there’s a limited right of a potential defendant to present some evidence, but no defense lawyers are allowed in the room.

There’s no cross-examination of the prosecution’s evidence. There’s no presentation of defense evidence.

Close to every time a prosecutor seeks an indictment from a grand jury, he or she will get an indictment from the grand jury.

What is an indictment?

WOLF: How would you define “indictment”?

HONIG: It’s a document setting forth formal charges against the defendant.

Three Trump grand juries

WOLF: We have three grand juries that are top of mind – for election meddling in Georgia, at the federal level for declassified documents and then the Manhattan DA. How much variation is there in grand juries between city, county and federal?

HONIG: There are minor variations, but the basics remain the same.

Here’s an example of one of the minor variations in New York State, but not in the federal system, meaning for DOJ. The defendant does have some limited right to be notified and given a chance to testify or present defense evidence, which we saw play out with Trump and then him asking Robert Costello to testify.

That’s not the case federally. You do not have to give a defendant a chance to testify or present evidence. That’s one slight variation. But the basic fundamentals are the same.

Former President Donald Trump was initially asked to turn himself in to authorities in New York today — the day after a Manhattan grand jury voted to indict him, his defense lawyer Joe Tacopina says.

Tacopina says he’s surprised by the timing of the indictment and that more time is needed, as the Secret Service that protects the former president needs to coordinate his surrender in New York.

The potential 2024 Republican primary field quickly coalesced on Thursday around a strategy for responding to former President Donald Trump’s indictment: Attack Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, the prosecutor, but stop short of praising Trump.

If the news of the former president facing more than 30 counts related to business fraud was unprecedented, the reaction from his possible GOP rivals was, in large part, familiar. Rather than risk the backlash from base voters loyal to Trump, ambitious Republicans zeroed in on a liberal foe. It’s a tactic that underscores the former president’s hold over the Republican Party – even when under indictment.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, widely viewed as Trump’s most formidable potential Republican opponent, did not mention the former president in his response, instead going after “the Soros-backed Manhattan District Attorney” – a reference to the billionaire liberal donor George Soros often at the center of conservative conspiracy theories.

“The weaponization of the legal system to advance a political agenda turns the rule of law on its head. It is un-American,” DeSantis tweeted. “The Soros-backed Manhattan District Attorney has consistently bent the law to downgrade felonies and to excuse criminal misconduct. Yet, now he is stretching the law to target a political opponent.”

DeSantis also reiterated that he would not “assist in an extradition request” for Trump, a Florida resident. Trump is expected to appear in court on Tuesday in New York, where he had lived most of his life.

Former Vice President Mike Pence, for years one of Trump’s most ardent defenders before offering some measured criticism after the January 6, 2021, riot at the US Capitol, called the indictment of his former boss “an outrage” and suggested that Bragg was politically motivated.

Pressed by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, who noted that a grand jury voted to charge Trump, Pence doubled down.

“But when you have an attorney general in New York, a Manhattan DA, that targeted one particular American in their campaigns, I think that offends the notion of the overwhelming majority of the American people who believe in fairness, who believe in equal treatment before the law,” he told Blitzer in an interview Thursday evening.

Bragg already had some name recognition among Republicans who sought to tie his progressive positions on criminal justice – in a city they often depict as being besieged by violent crime – to national Democrats like President Joe Biden. In the run-up to the indictment and then in its immediate aftermath, even those Republicans who have been more willing to criticize Trump denounced Bragg’s investigation as a political stunt or an abuse of power.

Read more here.

CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig explains the hush money payment scheme and how it is connected to the indictment of former President Donald Trump.

Watch:

The unprecedented news of former President Donald Trump’s indictment sent convulsions through the media landscape, with outlets like CNN quickly shifting into breaking news mode and devoting hours of programming to wall-to-wall coverage on the major development.

But on Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News, which had given the former president the cold shoulder since the January 6 attack, the network quickly pivoted into a stance reminiscent of years past: defending Trump at any cost and portraying the legal system as a deep-state, corrupt force in American society.

“Third world tactics.”

“Police state.”

“Political persecution and election interference.”

That’s just a tiny taste of some of the extreme rhetoric that aired Thursday night on Fox News, where Murdoch’s stable of right-wing hosts and commentators painted an ugly portrait of America, one in which supposedly George Soros-controlled prosecutors target conservatives in an unjust manner for the sole purpose of destroying opponents of the Democratic Party.

It came despite the relationship between Murdoch and Trump being on the rocks as of late.

Trump bashed Murdoch earlier this month as a “MAGA Hating Globalist RINO” and accused him of “aiding & abetting the DESTRUCTION OF AMERICA.” And, recently revealed messages Murdoch sent in the aftermath of the 2020 election showed that the right-wing media mogul believed that Trump was a danger to the country.

And yet, Murdoch allowed the incendiary pro-Trump rhetoric to grip his network on Thursday night.

Watching Fox News felt like being taken back in time to another era. It was evocative of the days in which hosts like Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson assailed Robert Mueller’s Russia probe and the impeachment trials.

If there was any doubt that Fox News might not offer a full-throated defense of Trump today, given the disgraced Republican’s shaky relationship with Murdoch, that has been erased.

And Fox News isn’t the only outlet in Murdoch’s empire rushing to defend Trump. The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board, which is known to echo Murdoch’s personal views, published a piece calling Trump’s indictment a “sad day for the country.” The editorial suggested that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg had carried out the action for political purposes.

The New York Post also appeared in Trump’s corner. The outlet’s website prominently featured a story saying Bragg “has a bad case of bias,” among other Trump-friendly articles.

I texted Murdoch on Thursday night asking how one could square his behind-the-scenes rhetoric, brought to light by Dominion Voting Systems’ case against Fox News, with the narrative his outlets were pushing. I didn’t get an answer.

But perhaps the messages released in the Dominion case, showing network leaders were terrified its audience would change the channel over its scrutiny of Trump, can offer us a good clue. He is almost certainly looking after his bottom line.

As Murdoch said, “Everything at stake here.”