Hello.
I'm Dana Bash in Washington,
where the state of our union
is bracing ourselves for a seismic event
as the first ever
former US president to face
criminal charges prepares
to appear in court.
Prosecutors, police,
a Secret Service
and Trump's team
are working out details
for his arraignment
before a judge
in a Manhattan criminal court on Tuesday,
where Donald Trump will face
a more than 30 count indictment
related to business fraud.
That indictment is still under seal.
It follows District Attorney
Alvin Bragg's
investigation into a hush money
payment by Trump's
then personal attorney,
Michael Cohen,
to an adult
film actress
just before the 2016 election.
In response to form,
the former
president is going on the attack,
calling the indictment political,
calling it a persecution
and using it to bolster his own 2024
presidential campaign.
Well, here with me
now is the president's former
president's lawyer for this case.
Joe Tacopina,
thank you so much for joining me
this morning.
I first want to ask you
about what you know
at this moment about the arraignment,
how it's going to go.
Walk us through
what is going to happen
when the former president shows
up in New York
Well, then, I mean, in theory,
it should be like
the hundreds of other arraignments
I've done in that building
over the
course of my career,
which is you walk in, you see a judge
you plead not guilty.
You set a schedule and you leave.
Obviously, this is different.
This has never happened before.
I've never had
Secret Service involved in an arraignment
before at 100 Center Street.
So the answer to that question
then is
I honestly don't know how
this is going to go,
hopefully as smoothly as possible.
And then we begin the
the battle to right this wrong,
because it's a
it's a really it's a day that,
in my opinion,
the rule of law in the United States
has died.
We're going to get to that in a second.
But just on the on the logistics,
do you know what time it starts
You know, nothing's been nailed down.
I think that's going to happen tomorrow.
But I think sometime in the afternoon,
will there be a perp walk?
You said you've done
many of these before.
Most of them do have perp walks
Not really.
Not in a case like this.
But, you know, look, I anticipate them
trying to get every ounce
of publicity out of this
that they think that they can get.
You know,
I don't know
if that's going to happen again.
Secret services involved.
So hopefully this will be is painless
and classy as possible
for a situation like this,
which I don't even
know really what brings us here.
But such a different story.
Some of the basics are, as you said,
you know,
necessary as part of this process.
Mug shot.
Will we will he have to take a mug shot?
Again?
Danny, your
question is that I just it's not normal
operating procedure.
Yeah, it's all up in the air.
All the
all the Tuesday stuff
is still very much up in the air
on the fact that we will very
loudly and proudly say not guilty.
Well, you're a very seasoned attorney,
so presumably
your strategy is not up in the air.
So let's talk
about what you're thinking about
when it comes to the legal strategy.
Once Donald Trump is arraigned,
are you going to move
to dismiss the case
right off the bat in the arraignment
and if so, on what grounds?
No, not we're not doing anything
at the arraignment
because that would be showmanship
and nothing more
because we haven't even seen
the indictment yet.
You know, we will take the indictment.
We will dissect it.
The team will look at every every
potential issue that we will
be able to challenge
and we will challenge.
And, of course,
I very much anticipated motion
to dismiss coming,
because there's no law that fits this.
And you have a situation where,
you know, the federal government,
the Department of Justice,
turn this matter down.
The FEC, which governs federal election
laws, said there's no violation here
yet somehow
a state prosecutor has taken a
a misdemeanor
and try to cobble together
to make it a felony
by alleging a violation
of federal federal campaign violations.
And the FEC said that doesn't exist.
Right.
Well, let me ask you about that,
because you mentioned it.
You've been talking a lot
about the FEC and federal
investigations and allegations
investigation,
I should say, that
didn't end up in an indictment
on the federal level.
But we haven't seen the specifics.
And we should say that over
and over again.
This is still under seal,
this indictment. But because it is
on a local level, on a state level,
presumably this will be focused on
those issues where he allegedly broke
the law there,
whether it becomes
an issue
of trying to defraud a business
or something along those lines,
not necessarily
at the FEC and things that are discussed
No, no, no, no, no. It can't be.
This was a federal presidential election.
The allegation here in some
twilight zone
sort of scenario
is that he settled the civil case
six years earlier,
something that happens, by the way,
all the time.
A civil case was settled
with confidentiality agreements
between a lawyer that was representing
him and a lawyer
representing the Stormy Daniels.
They trusted him to sign
that settlement agreement.
So they signed it.
The lawyer financed it,
subsequently gave him a host of invoices
for legal services over the course of
a year.
They were recorded.
But understand
here's the key distinction, Donna.
They were recorded in their entries.
They were never filed anywhere.
They were never filed with the IRS.
They never took the tax deduction
and they never filed with the FEC
because they weren't required to.
This was a personal expenditure,
not a campaign expenditure.
Had it been a campaign expenditure,
he would have used campaign funds.
And then, of course,
we'd be talking about here today
the outrage at Donald Trump,
whose campaign funds
for personal expenditure
they'd be baying for his scalp.
It's a completely upside down world.
So he's damned if he didn't
and if he didn't.
So those are misdemeanors.
By the way,
the record entries, which don't exist
and not for centuries,
but assuming they were
they're misdemeanors
way beyond the statute of limitations.
So they have to cobble them together
to try and get a felony.
I'm going to speak to Michael
Cohen's attorney next.
He says that
there is actual evidence
that your client, the former president,
participated, participated in falsifying
business records.
Have you seen any such evidence
I know there's no such evidence.
I mean, look,
Michael Cohen's lawyer
spinning Michael Cohen side.
Michael Cohen is a pathological convicted
liar.
Perjury is like the banks,
the IRS, Congress,
now, we're saying you lied to the FEC
when they sent that letter saying
there was no campaign violation.
I heard him on CNN the other day
saying that
when he pled guilty under oath,
when he became a new man,
he really wasn't guilty.
He was forced to plead guilty.
So that's perjury.
If that's now true,
he's someone who was
constitutionally incapable
of telling the same story,
the same way twice.
So I'm not really worried
about what Michael Cohen
is saying on this.
The records
and the facts will speak for themselves.
Okay.
I want to ask
about the judge
that we believe is going to preside
over the arraignment.
The former president,
your client, was lashing out against him.
His name is Juan Mershon. And
the former
president said that the judge hates him
and was handpicked by the D.A.
for this case for that reason.
Are you going to ask
for a different judge
We are going to take the indictment,
evaluate all our legal options
and pursue everyone most vigorously.
This is a case of political persecution.
Had he not been running for office
right now
for the office of the presidency,
which, by the way,
the polls have shown
since this has been announced,
his numbers have gone up significantly.
Had he not been running for presidency,
he would not have been indicted.
Well, but let's talk about the area
where he'd been indicted.
My question is about the judge.
Will you ask.
Will you ask for a decision
Well,
I just said we have to get the indictment
and then we will evaluate
every single legal maneuver.
You know,
I have no issue with this
judge whatsoever.
Well, your client does.
He says that his reputation.
Well, what, Michael?
But my client has a right
to have an issue with everything.
He's been politically persecuted.
Make no mistake about that, Dana.
Whether you send the right or the left
or your supporter
or detractor of Donald Trump,
this should really bother you.
This this should really shake
the core of what we believe
our justice system should be about,
should not be weaponized.
To go after political opponents
so that
you don't believe this is like out
because he's the victim.
I have no reason
to believe that, such as bias.
I've not been before him on this matter.
So we have to let this process play out.
Okay. I appreciate it.
Hopefully we will get back to you
as you do
learn more
about how the process
is going to go on Tuesday.
Thank you so much.