Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Trump Leaves Criminal Court After Arraignment; Trump Pleads Not Guilty to 34 Felony Counts; Trump Attorneys Speak After Arraignment. Aired 3:30-4p ET

Aired April 04, 2023 - 15:30   ET



ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: I want to go to Kaitlin Collins who is on the 15th floor. Kaitlan, very brief glimpse of the former president as he exited the courthouse. I'm wondering from your vantage point what you saw.

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF CORRESPONDENT: Well, remarkable he did not come over to reporters. We were about 50 feet away from where he was there, and he was expected to come speak to us before, but he was in that courtroom for around 45 minutes or so.

Much longer -- I would say a little bit longer than some of his attorneys have said beforehand. They believed he was going to be and therefore they predicted about 30 minutes or so, and they had expected it to be a relatively smooth process.

He obviously did not look pleased coming out of that courtroom. I will say (INAUDIBLE) we officer and the bare metal barricades you can see they turned him around. And the way that focuses like a club type thing in the middle. They (INAUDIBLE) them so it did not appear to be walking over to the door, but it's unclear why.

Without officials here why the barricades were there in the direct access to it, but that is, you know, ultimately part of why he did not come over to the media as we were standing there.

Obviously did not look pleased. You could see it on his face despite his attorney saying that, you know, he was in a Brazilian mood earlier today.

COOPER: Let's go straight to Kara Scannell, got just got out of the courtroom. Kara, what have you learned?

KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It's an hour where -- I'm in a very crowded space. But I hope you can hear me.

COOPER: I hear you, Kara. Go ahead you're on the air.

SCANNELL: The former president pleaded not guilty to 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. Those are all felony counts. The prosecutors said that this was part of a conspiracy that started in 2015 and involves the payment of at least $130,000 for Stormy Daniels. As part of the allegations, prosecutors said that this was part of an

effort to promote his candidacy by burying negative stories ahead of the election. And now we don't have all the additional details of what else might be included in this, but that is how they outlined it in court.

Now in this brief, what was that about 45 minutes arrangements and the former president entered the room. It was so quiet you can hear a pin drop. He walked in. He looked his lips. He was standing. Each of the rows filled with press. There were about 60 members of the press in there. Each row flanked by court security officers.

We were not allowed to use any electronic devices that we've all of having been filing out now to report the news.

He spoke only a few times. He a plea of not guilty on his own. He also was addressed by the judge who addressed to him some of these threatening statements he made. That was something that prosecutors have raised. They had asked the judge not to impose any kind of gag order but just to raise issues of Trump threatening social media posts. They handed out copies of those posts to the court and to Trump.

The judge said that he was not going to impose any kind of gag order. He said it he wouldn't even if he was out right now. But he did warn the former (INAUDIBLE), also, the prosecutors warned their witnesses just tamp down their rhetoric, to reduced what they're saying about the case and the judge warns from both sides. But particularly speaking to former President Trump not to make any statements that would incite any violence or threats against any officials.

You know, the former president has sometimes (INAUDIBLE). But and number (INAUDIBLE).

COOPER: We're having problems with Kara. We'll try to get back in contact. Elie Honig.

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: So, Anderson, we're getting our first look at the indictment and with the proviso that we've not yet had a chance to read all of it. A couple of initial impressions.

First of all, this is what we call a bare bones indictment. Contrary to what we are discussing before. This essentially just lays out the statutory language, the name the date of each offense, but there is not a lot of detail in what we're seeing at this moment. There do appear to be 34 charges in here. There does not appear to be -- and we're looking at it for the first time. There does not appear to be a conspiracy charge per se.

Now, that doesn't mean they can still explain the whole scheme at trial, but it looks like these are charges based on falsifying of business records and then falsifying business records in order to commit or conceal some other crimes. So those are some initial impressions as we page through this indictment for the first time.

COOPER: Karen. KAREN FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, and interestingly, it does not --

COOPER: By the way, where are you getting this?

AGNIFILO: I was given a copy.

COOPER: OK go ahead.

AGNIFILO: But I do -- I have been given this. There is a state -- they did file a statement of facts in addition to this bare bones' indictment.


The indictment itself doesn't talk about whether or not the -- what crime was relied upon to bump it up from a misdemeanor to a felony. But it is -- but there is language in -- by way of a statement of facts that was also filed along with the indictment, which is indictment number 71543 of 23. 23 is with respect to the year 2023.

And there's an introduction that talks about how Donald Trump -- this is again the statement of facts. How Donald Trump repeatedly and fraudulently falsified business records to conceal criminal conduct that hid damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 presidential election.

So right from the outside this this is all about election interference, and that's how they're framing it.

Then it says from about August 2015 to December 2017, the defendant orchestrated a scheme with others to influence the 2016 president -- presidential election by identifying and purchasing negative information about him to suppress its publication and benefit the defendant's electoral prospects.

And it says, in order to execute this unlawful scheme that participants violated election laws and made and caused false entries in the business records of various entry entities in New York. So, the DA's office here is relying on election laws as the crimes that were being either concealed or committed to elevate the falsifying business records to a felony.

It says one component of the scheme was that at the defendant's request, a lawyer who then worked for the Trump organization as special counsel to the to the defendant -- they're calling him lawyer, A. Covertly paid $130,000 to an adult film actress shortly before the election.

So this is talking about Michael Cohen paying Stormy Daniels the $130,000. It then goes on to describe how that's done and the false business records that are used or that were created to conceal the payment. So after the election, this lawyer then goes on to -- they describe how each check was processed and disguised for payment of legal services.

COOPER: Is each check a separate count?

AGNIFILO: Yes, each check appears to be a separate count. Some of them -- some of these, there were invoices, and that would be -- as Adam Kaufman was saying earlier -- each entry of a false information into a business record would be its own count. And so, each item has its own count.

This statement of fact then goes on and talks about a background. There's a section called background before that was the introduction and it talks about the Trump organization from approximately June 2015 to 2017. And then it talks about a scheme. They call it "The Scheme." And they call it "The Catch and Kill Scheme" to suppress negative information.

And then it goes on and gives very detailed facts. There was a Trump Tower meeting at 20 -- in 2015. And then it says a few months later, they tried to suppress a doorman's story. And there's just a lot of information in here that that would love to digest and come back and tell.

But this statement of facts that was filed by the district attorney's office is to tell Mr. Trump, first and foremost, and his legal team, what evidence was presented to a grand jury and what will be relied upon at trial and what will be proven at trial.

COOPER: I just want to go to CNN's Kara Scannell, who's gotten out of the courtroom. Kara described just what you heard and saw in court as we continue to look over the indictments.

SCANNELL: Well, Anderson, when the former president entered the courtroom, you could hear a pin drop. He entered, he scanned each and every row filled with reporters, and he had a bit of a scowl on his face. You walked very slowly to the defense table. Then he didn't speak until the judge asked him to enter a plea on the 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. And the former president said in his voice that we all know, not guilty.

Now the judge -- the prosecutors also asked the judge to address the rhetoric that former president has made both by the verbal attacks he's placed on the judge, as well as the District Attorney Alvin Bragg. And the judge said that, you know, he was concerned about these statements. An attorney for Donald Trump, Todd Blanche, who just came onto the team.

He said that Trump was frustrating and that he has not had a chance to address all of these allegations that the prosecution and their witnesses, including Michael Cohen, have gone out and publicly spoken about.

But the judge said that he didn't agree that this was justified by frustration, and he said he would warn both sides both the prosecution and Donald Trump to tamp it down their rhetoric. He wasn't going to impose any kind of gag order, but he also warned them that they needed to address this to tamp down and not incite any violence.

[15:40:04] I'm a little out of breath because I had to run around the block because the security is so tight here to get out of the building.

COOPER: Take some breaths.

SCANNELL: That's basically it from president. He didn't -- he wasn't asked really any other questions to engage, which is normal in an arraignment. There's really just a little engagement from the actual defendant. I think we see him and his motorcade leaving out. There his attorneys are speaking to the cameras.

COOPER: Can you explain why --

OK, hold on second, one second one second. Let us know when they're rolling. Guys, we have the attorneys.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Attorneys are a 544.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: One second. Go ahead.

COOPER: Shimon, you're on.


OK, I hear you guys.

TODD BLANCHE, TRUMP ATTORNEY: And the district attorney has turned what is actually a completely political issue into a political prosecution. And it's not a good day. It's not a sad day. I don't expect -- I don't expect this to happen in this country. You don't expect this to happen to somebody who was the president of the United States.

And on the one hand -- on the one hand, there's not really any surprises. I know there was a lot of talk over the past several weeks and the past several days about what's going to be in this indictment, and it's going to be there that we don't know there must be something besides what we've been talking about for the past four or five years. There wasn't. There's nothing.

The indictment itself is boilerplate. It doesn't allege any federal crime, any state crime that has been violated. It doesn't allege what the false statement is, and it's really disappointing. It's sad and we're going to fight it. We're going to fight it hard.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Anything in the we're you surprised. Were you surprised by anything in the indictment?

JOSEPH TACOPINA, TRUMP ATTORNEY: No. I was surprised there are no facts in there. I mean, normally in an indictment you have alleged facts. So, they said that this was a false business record entry to aid and abet another crime. We're not staying what the other crime was.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Can you talk about his demeanor? How he's doing? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Reaction was charges against him.

BLANCHE: When you say what his reaction is. What do you expect his reaction was? I mean his reaction -- his reaction was exactly what would happen if it happened to anybody that I'm looking at now or anybody that's hearing what you're saying. He's frustrated. He's upset, but I'll tell you what he's motivated. And it's not going to stop him and it's not going to slow him down. And it's exactly what he expected. And so, to that extent, no surprise.

But he's also -- he's also -- I mean, he's awesome, upset and frustrated and disappointed (INAUDIBLE).

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What about the warnings against him?

BLANCHE: It was not a woman --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: From the gut talking about --

BLANCHE: The judge didn't recognize it. That the district attorney made a statement addressing what they proceed to be doing. I'm not sure of the wrong thing they use for your rhetoric of some sort. Obviously, you responded, and the judge just took it in. He asked the parties to consider what they're saying and not saying.

TACOPINA: Guys, he did not admonished the president and that's important.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE) ... president not incite violence and civil unrest.

BLANCHE: He did not requested the president, not use language. He requested that everybody in both parties from using languages inappropriate. By the way that includes -- that includes the witnesses. The witnesses for the people who were suggested just as much as the president.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They also include the former president swinging a baseball at the head of the Manhattan DA.

TACOPINA: Well, I don't know where you got that. Because --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That was tweet sent out by the former president.

TACOPINA: No, it wasn't. And first of all -- first of all, that picture was not him swinging a baseball bat. I mean, if you want to distort the facts, go right ahead. I want to address that. Yes, it is. He wasn't swinging a baseball bat at anyone's head. That was a picture of him showing off American made bat. Someone else put a picture of the district attorney next to him. And in an article posted that that's --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Up to now using language that incites.

TACOPINA: It does. Here's what we're going to talk today. Here's what we're what we're going to talk. We're about that we can talk about the insufficiency of this case. And I will say this to you today's unsealing of this indictment shows that the rule of law died in this country. Because -- well, everyone is not above the law. No one's below it either. And if this man's name was not Donald J. Trump, there is no scenario we'd all be here today. Please understand that based on these charges --




TACOPINA: Yes, eight o'clock.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What are we going to do?

TACOPINA: I don't know, you don't listen.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE) January, did you think that was realistic?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Can you guys talk about -- there's a lot of speculation about the unity among the defense attorneys.

TACOPINA: Look at this. Look at us.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is that why you chose to do this?


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The chose to come out today do we could speak with them. That there is no disunity here. But there is no disunity here, gossip and it's nonsense. We've been working together and we will be working together.

TACOPINA: And this could be quite frankly, is the best team I've ever worked with the lawyers. I'm honored to be working with these guys. It's a family. It's team and we have one mission and we'll achieve that.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What's your next move. What's your next move?

BLANCHE: I'm going to go home and have some food.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What is that situation that you said --


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- what you hear about violence. When do you start filing motions? I'm assuming one of the first things you're going to do to dismiss. I assume that'll be something --

BLANCHE: The judge set a motion schedule that requires motion files and four months, so that's something we're filing Monday.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This whole notion about how this is sort of like a novel or do you --

BLANCHE: It's not a notion, it's actually fact. That's why we didn't talk about --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But talk about that.

BLANCHE: The mission is the same, the district attorney this office has existed for decades and decades and you have you can find one if you like. You will never see your charts like this, ever.

TACOPINA: You understand this is this state prosecutor is prosecuting a federal election law violation that doesn't exist between federal election officials. It's simple as that, that you could sum it all of like that.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Will there be anything else in your motion to dismiss?

TACOPINA: We haven't even come close to change of venue.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Could someone address now --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- could potentially post discovery on social media, maybe your client will be that.

TACOPINA: That won't happen. More than -- more than us committing, he's committed.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What about the change of venue?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (INAUDIBLE) of posting on social media.

TACOPINA: We're not. We're not having any discussion about what we pulled over.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What about the change of venue? Just answer this question about the change of venue. There's a lot --

TACOPINA: It's premature.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right, right. So why is he -- why is he talking about that? Why is he trying to move this to a place like Staten Island?

TACOPINA: Once again, we have three lawyers here to litigate and fight this case? We're not PR consultants. We're not social media consultants. Donald Trump has made one hell of a brand and became president of United States with his social media and posting everything else, his messages. We are here to talk about the case and litigate cases. We can't address what he posted what he wants to post or did post. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But as his attorneys, have you told, stop posting

this rhetoric --

TACOPINA: So, what I said before, we can't -- literally we can't tell you what we've discussed with Donald.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you concerned?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He's continuing to go after the judge. Talking about the judge's wife, talking about family. I mean, are you --

TACOPINA: I don't think the judge was concerned about --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Look, with any other defendants, wouldn't you be like --

TACOPINA: I know the defendant want to be here today.

SUSAN NECHELES, TRUMP ATTORNEY: He's not going after the judge. He is not going after the judge. He commented that he thought that there were some issues that may cause a conflict. That's not going after the judge. He is not threatening the judge, not going after the judge.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right, he's going after the DA.

NECHELES: He has said that the DA -- he is angry because the DA has brought a case that is unjustified, and so I'm not going to comment on it. Or you may disagree with the way he spoke.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Can you talk about the process? Was he fingerprinted? Was there a --

NECHELES: I'm not going to talk about that. In fact, I think I thank you for your attention.


COOPER: You've just been listening to the defense attorneys for the former president. CNN's Paula Reid is also at court. Paula, you've got new details on the indictment. What jumps out at you?

Paula Reid, are you there? Elie Honig are you there?


COOPER: Go ahead, Paula.

REID: Yes, we've been looking over the indictment. What really stands out to me here in layman's terms that they're accusing the former president of engaging in a scheme to hide unlawful activity from the public both before and after the 2016 election. They are alleging that he engaged in what are called "Catch and Kill Schemes." Where you pay someone for their story and then suppress it to boost his electoral prospects. Now they point to three specific instances. The first is a $30,000

payment made to a doorman who alleged that the former president had had a child out of wedlock. The second payment that we know about is $150,000 that was paid to Karen MacDougal, who alleges she had an extramarital affair. And they also point to $130,000 that was given to Stormy Daniels, who also alleges she had a sexual relationship with then candidate Trump.

Then they go on to say that the way these were reimbursed, particularly when it comes to $130,000 that was paid to Stormy Daniels. They say, look, these were falsely labeled as legal expenses and then mischaracterized for tax purposes.

So, it's interesting that they're trying to elevate this case by tying it directly to the outcome of the 2016 election. That is an argument that the district attorney's office has amplified.


That this isn't just a quote unquote people work crime. This was something that could have impacted the outcome of the election.

But what I don't see in here is any explanation or any new facts that would make it clear to the American public, why this is coming out now. We're talking about conduct that occurred seven years ago, something that's been under investigation for five years, and it's unclear based on this set of facts, if it will be clear to the jury that this is something that he should be convicted on and that there is no political motivation here.

Now the district attorney in a short time, will have a press conference and he may be able to speak to why he is bringing this case at this very moment. But I don't see anything really new here.

COOPER: Paula appreciate that. I want to go to Elie Honig. Elie, I know you've been looking over the indictments.

HONIG: Yes, so a few big picture takeaways, Anderson. So, first of all, this indictment appears to be based only on the payment of hush money. We had talked about, could there be some unexpected twist here? The answer is no. There is no allegation relating to tax crimes. There's no allegation relating to over or undervaluation of Trump Org. assets. There's no allegation here relating to obstruction of justice or threats.

So, this is a hush money-based indictment. Now the indictment itself is bare bones. It just lays out the statutory language, and that's it. But there is a 13-page statement of facts that goes into some detail.

It looks like the way we ended up with 34 charges here, is prosecutors have charged each separate business record entry as a count. Each check, each ledger entry, each voucher is its own count. That's how we arrive at 34.

It appears and again, the indictment itself gives us very little information really just dates and references to the business record. It appears the actual criminal charges are based on the Stormy Daniels payoff and reimbursement schemes based on the dates here. Because the dates are in 2017. That is when the Trump Org. was reimbursing Michael Cohen, who made the original payments.

The way each of these counts is structured -- people should maybe think of it as two levels. Level one here would be a misdemeanor. That is just falsification of business records. If Donald Trump knew or was part of falsification of business records, that is a misdemeanor. Now, level two to each of these counts, is if those records were falsified in connection with some other crime.

Now, here's what's interesting to me -- and I'd be interested to get Karen's take on this -- is the indictment doesn't tell us -- and Joe Tacopina was just talking about this. The indictment actually does not say what those other crimes are now. Presumably based on the statement of facts that we have. They relate to campaign finance. But I don't know how unusual it is. I would think that in an indict -- the whole purpose of an indictment is to serve notice to the defendant.

So what they say here is falsification of business records, which is a misdemeanor, and they falsified business records 34 times over to commit some other crime. But again, they don't -- the prosecutors don't say what that other crime is.

COOPER: Karen, we heard from the defense attorneys saying, essentially, there's nothing new here. Is that -- do you agree with that?

AGNIFILO: I think there is a lot that's new here. I think the fact that this is framed as an election interference case, the fact that it includes the payment to the doorman as well as Susan McDougal and Stormy Daniels. I think we all expected the Stormy Daniels part but we just didn't know that this other information would be included in the indictment. And I think the fact that they didn't charge conspiracy is something that's taken a few people by surprise.

But just to answer Elie's question about what crime elevates this to the felony, and the statute itself is penal law section 175.10 of the New York penal law, falsifying business records in the first degree. And it says, if you if you commit the crime of falsifying business records as the misdemeanor -- which is what Elie was talking about -- but with the intent -- when your intent to defraud includes the intent to commit, or another crime or aid or conceal the commission thereof.

And the operative word there is you intended to do it. You didn't have to complete it right. You didn't have to even have anything even coming close to completing it. And I like to analogize this to a burglary, which is something that people are very familiar with.

And a burglary is a charge of trespass that if you intend to commit a crime there in, you then -- it's a felony burglary. And oftentimes the person doesn't actually commit the actual felony once they are in there because they're either caught ahead of time or somehow, their actions were foiled.

And so, and prosecutors might not know what intent -- what crime the burglar was intending to commit there in. It could be a sexual assault. It could be a theft. It could be violent crime, some other violent crime. And prosecutors don't have to specify which one.


They just have to prove that the intention was there. And so, I think that's what they're doing here in this case. There's -- that the intention is to commit or conceal a crime. And which one is it? We might not know.

Perhaps it was the intention to commit a tax crime that he then didn't do ultimately. But it's still of his intention is there. That is what is going on.

JOHN MILLER, CNN CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE ANALYST: I think it's seeing a couple of interesting things that emerged just for the release of these documents. Number one, the disappointment, I think for us of a bare bones' indictment, where it's just listing the charges in the statutes. But number two --

COOPER: As opposed to telling a story that has a clear narrative.

MILLER: Right, but number two, along with that they release -- as Karen (INAUDIBLE), a statement of facts. That's a different document that goes beyond what's in the indictment. So, it appears what DA Bragg is doing is -- because he can only really discuss things that are on the public record within the four corners of those two documents -- is a bare bones indictment without a whole story attached to it.

But a statement of facts that gives him the additional latitude in his upcoming press conference to expand on the indictment and talk about the reasons behind it. And it appears that, you know, out of the public statement that comes with both of those documents, it was falsifying New York business records in order to conceal damaging information and unlawful activity from American voters before and after the 2016 election.

So that is where he is laying out a motive that goes with the story that goes with the charges.

COOPER: And Kara Scannell is standing by. You've also been looking at this.

SCANNELL: Well, Anderson, I just want to add on to what John was saying there. Because I just want to add to what John was saying there because in the -- in court today, one of the prosecutors laid out what this theory was. He said that these falsified business records were done with the intent to commit or conceal another crime. Specifically, he said, to undermine the integrity of the 2016 presidential election and as part of an on lawful effort to promote Trump's candidacy that they were doing these deals to bury some of these stories.

Now one of the allegations in this, you know, relates to the Stormy Daniels payment. According to the indictment, David Pecker had reached out to Michael Cohen with knowledge that Stormy Daniels wanted to go public with her story. This was just after the Access Hollywood tape had become public and really was, you know, a shock to the candidacy. It caused a lot of concern within his campaign.

Now, according to the indictment, that Trump had wanted Michael Cohen to hold off on paying Stormy Daniels until after the election because he thought that it would not go public and that he would be able to keep it from going public. And it wouldn't matter then unless it came out after the election. So, that's part of what prosecutors are trying to show was Trump's knowledge and intent in trying to disguise this, to hide this story and tying it directly to the campaign.

That is one of the issues here. You know, why would he do this? And part of the state law that they could be arguing that they're trying to apply here is that he was trying to promote his candidacy. And so, this would be an effort by the prosecution to show that Trump had knowledge of this payment and that he was tying it directly to the campaign. Of course, that will be up to a jury to decide, Anderson.

COOPER: All right. I want to go back to Jake in DC -- Jake.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: Anderson, joining me now to react exclusively to the just unsealed indictment against Donald Trump. Trump Attorney Jim Trusty. Mr. Trusty, thanks so much for joining us. A big picture -- what is your reaction to the indictment?

JIM TRUSTY, TRUMP ATTORNEY: Well, in a sense, I'm happy that there's not more surprises to it. You know, it's kind of bare bones. It's a little defensive in that fashion. And it still has I think legal frailties that accompany the credibility frailties and lend themselves to some pretrial litigation.

TAPPER: How do you mean? What are the frailties? What are the weaknesses in this case?

TRUSTY: Yes well, it's all the stuff we were kind of thinking we were going to see, but we weren't 100 percent sure. And again, I've barely had a chance to even skim the indictments. I don't want to overstate it.

But look, there's a lot of -- I mean, there's a lot of legal gymnastics going on here, you know, trying to felony -- to make felonies out of misdemeanors to avoid a statute of limitations problem. That's the kind of blatantly the underpinning for all of this. And you know, we can gloss over it and you've got lawyers are talking about the specific intent as if it's not that big a deal, that you can prove it a number of different ways.

But it's huge here. You know, you're talking about a specific intent to essentially break federal law. That's not only unchartered territory that's perilous territory. So again, it's early. I don't want to take the place of the New York team that's on it. And I'm sure they'll give it a hard look and give it some serious thought.

But I think that, you know, you'll see very robust motions to dismiss that will have some weight to them. They may well take this case out of play this year. TAPPER: There are three specific actions, generally speaking that the

indictment discusses. One of them is $130,000 payment from ...