<Type: SHOW>

<Head: Sources: Trump Indicted On 30 Counts Of Document Fraud-Related Charges; Trump Tp

Fly To New York Monday And Surrender Tuesday; Manhattan Prosecutor Also Pressed
Witnesses On Payment To Karen McDougal. Aired 4-4:30p ET>
<Sect: News; International>
<Byline: Nicolle Wallace, Susanne Craig, Andrew Weissmann, Mike Schmidt, Charlie Sykes>
<Guest: >
<High: Former President Donald Trump is facing about 30 charges in New York City related to
document fraud connected to hush money he allegedly paid to cover up affairs, two sources
familiar with the matter told NBC News after he was indicted Thursday. Trump will be arraigned
in the criminal case against him on Tuesday afternoon but will travel to New York from Florida
the day before to stay at his Trump Tower on Monday night. Manhattan prosecutors
investigating Donald Trump's role in paying hush money to a porn star also have been
examining a $150,000 payment to a former Playboy model who alleged that she had an affair
with the former president.>
<Spec: Supreme Court; Government; Congress; Alvin Bragg; Joe Tacopina; Robert Mueller;
Karen McDougal; Michael Cohen; Allen Weisselberg; Keith Davidson; Wharton Business School;
David Pecker; SDNY; New York Times; Alex Rodriguez; Major League Baseball; Rob Manfred>

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:00:38]

NICOLLE WALLACE, MSNBC HOST: Hi there, everyone. It's 4:00 in the East. We can forget about
being on the verge of a generational moment in our country's history because as we meet
today this afternoon, we are living it. Donald Trump is now a once indicted twice impeached
forever disgraced ex-president and he's expected to surrender to law enforcement in New York
early next week. We understand it will happen on Tuesday.

Although there was some misinformation, confusion this morning. Trump's attorney told NBC
News earlier that the Office of the Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg who's overseeing
this case wanted Trump to turn himself in today. That lawyer Joe Tacopina insisted that Secret
Service needed more time to "prepare."

We should tell you our reporting does not support that assertion that he made. Sources within
the Secret Service told our colleague Julie Ainsley that Trumps detail could be ready to
transport Trump at a moment's notice.

So, there's a lot of information swirling. There's a lot of news developing this hour. We're going
to take you through all of it with our favorite reporters and friends. There's this news that
Donald Trump is expected to fly into New York Monday night. He will turn himself in the next
morning Tuesday. That's according to the latest from NBC's Jonathan Dienst.
We're not expecting D.A. Bragg to unseal the indictment until Trump actually appears in court.
But we can report this afternoon that according to two sources familiar with the matter, it lists
30 counts of document fraud related charges.

Our legal friends are all here today to help us understand what that might mean. As for the
D.A., we saw Alvin Bragg earlier today flanked by security walking into the office. Meanwhile,
Donald Trump described as seeking to project confidence right now is predictably on the attack,
not just targeting Alvin Bragg but targeting Alvin Braggs's wife along with other lawyers
involved in this case.

And interestingly, the judge, yes, he's sent out half a dozen fundraising e-mails since the news
broke yesterday. Of course, he has. Of course, it should be top of mind for him and us that this
is just the beginning. Alvin Bragg's investigation is only one of four current active investigations
into Donald Trump. So, it just might be the case that days like this are about to become less
historic, less extraordinary.

It's where we begin today with some of our favorite reporters and friends. Someone who
knows the details of this case, probably better than most of us. New York Times investigative
reporter Susanne Craig is here. Also joining us, Andrew Weissmann, former Justice Department
prosecutor, former senior member of Robert Mueller special counsel investigation. We haven't
let him out of that chair since you saw him here yesterday.

Plus, the editor-at-large of The Bulwark, Charlie Sykes is back with us. And with us on set, Mike
Schmidt, New York Times Washington correspondent. Luckily for us, they're all MSNBC
contributors. Susanne Craig, I feel like in our conversations, in every attempt that we've made
to understand what is behind the legal moves, what the documents tell us, you have always
sought to caution or warn us that this could be bigger than the Stormy Daniels payments.

And it seems that some of the tea leaves suggested may also include payments to Karen
McDougal. Talk about what you see in the tea leaves. And what we know is in the documents.

SUSANNE CRAIG, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: So, we know that there are, you know, from the -- and
there's been a lot of reporting at the New York Times and other places that this is going to
include a number of potential felony counts. That doesn't necessarily mean that it is going to
expand beyond the Stormy Daniels hush money payment. These all could be connected. But it
could -- it could include, you know, something to do with Karen McDougal.

And again, this is -- I always get nervous when I'm on T.V. and you don't know. But I did go back
and I was looking through Michael Cohen's first book today. I've been looking last couple days
reading it and going over it. And he has this this fascinating exchange that he recounts that he
had with Allen Weisselberg when the hush money payment was made. You know, they have to
come up with 130,000 in the first instance.
It was interesting Allen Weisselberg. He's like I'm not going to front this. And then they had to
figure out what's Michael Cohen said, OK, I'm going to go take the home equity loan. I'm going
to do it. Allen Weisselberg looks at him and they, you know, they have a conversation about
where should they try and kind of quit the invoice.

[16:05:06]

And one of the suggestions was well let's maybe lay it off at the L.A. golf course. And then, Allen
says, well, do you know anybody that might want to -- for example, buy a Mar-a-Lago
membership and we can maybe do it that way. There were sort of all these interesting
suggestions that Weisselberg had that go to the falsification. And I think we're going to
probably see some of that in the indictment.

You know, there's a lot of ways that you can get money to somebody, for example, in the case
of Donald Trump. You could find, you could ask somebody just to book a whole bunch of hotel
rooms at his place and not show up and get him money that way. This doesn't necessarily lead
to, you know, that you could have a falsification of a business record without tax fraud. But one
thing I'm going -- just be very fascinated by on whatever, I don't know if it's going to be
Tuesday, but when the indictment does come out, as does this sort of veer into tax fraud, did
they falsify the business record and then go to the taxman with it?

And will there'll be a state charge there? And also, I think the IRS hopefully would be interested
in that as well. It seems like they're not interested in a lot what Donald Trump does. But I'd be
curious to see, you know, if we do get a tax -- a tax crime here as well. It's not necessarily going
to happen but it could happen.

WALLACE: That's so interesting. I mean -- and you and I have asked that question or, you know,
where has the IRS been? It also comes as we learned that Trump is very interested in seeking
the IRS on his political adversaries. To your point, we did a little bit of this homework as well,
and looked at what we knew about how and where the plans were hatched to structure the
hush money payments.

And I have two things I want to share. This is Cohen testifying under oath about Trump's role in
it. Let me play this first.

CRAIG: Yes.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL COHEN, FORMER DONALD TRUMP'S ATTORNEY: In 2016, prior to the election, I was
contacted by Keith Davidson, who is the attorney but was the attorney for Miss Clifford, for
Stormy Daniels. And after several rounds of conversations with him about purchasing her life
rights for $130,000. What I did each and every time is go straight into Mr. Trump's office and
discuss the issue with him.
When it was ultimately determined, this was days before the election, that Mr. Trump was
going to pay the $130,000. In the office with me was Allen Weisselberg, the Chief Financial
Officer of the Trump Organization. He acknowledged to Allen, that he was going to pay the
130,000 and that Allen and I should go back to his office and figure out how to do it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: I mean, just -- to all that has been in front of our very eyes for a very long time. No
one's ever refuted Trump's role in this. The Southern District of New York puts in writing, Trump
is the coordinator and director of the hush money scheme involving both women. I mean, this
isn't in dispute. And I wonder what you make of what lies ahead in terms of -- Trump is a
master at fogging up the mirror of what we already know to be established facts.

CRAIG: Right. And I keep thinking you can't have it both ways. You can't A, not know and then B,
has spent your entire life saying you're involved in every aspect of the company down to every
check that has been signed. He has been saying that since he was, you know, a day out of
Wharton Business School and starting at his father's company that he was intricately involved
in everything to the point where, you know, he erased his father's role pretty much in the
building of his own, you know, of his own company.

So, I think that's going to be one thing is, you know, he always when, you know, when this
happens, when things happen, he's always like, I don't know that person. I didn't do that. And I
think this is just catching up with him.

WALLACE: Yes. It's so interesting. Andrew Weissmann., let me -- let me go back and just -- let's
spend some time in the time capsule in terms of things that have been established. This is
Trump and Cohen in their own voices. This is a recording -- and again, it gets to the structuring
and Trump's role in designing the financial structures for paying hush money to women with
whom he had affairs. Hello to the barking dog. Let me play this for you, Andrew.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COHEN: I need to open up a company for the transfer of all of that info regarding our friend
David, you know, so that -- I'm going to do that right away. I've actually come up and I've just
spoken --

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Give it to me --

COHEN: And I've spoken to Allen Weisselberg about how to set the whole thing up with --

TRUMP So, what do we got to pay for this?

COHEN: -- funding. Yes. And it's all the stuff.

TRUMP: Yes. I was thinking about that.

COHEN: All this stuff because -- here, you never know where that company -- you never know
what's going to be --

TRUMP: Maybe he gets hit by a truck.

COHEN: Correct. So, I'm all over that. And, I spoke to Allen Weisselberg about it when it comes
time for the financing, which will be --

(CROSSTALK)

TRUMP: Wait a sec. What financing?

COHEN: Well, I'll have to pay him something.

(CROSSTALK)

TRUMP: -- pay with cash.

COHEN: No, no, no, no, no.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: I mean, I've watched enough log movies to know that it isn't people don't utter this
sentence, "pay with cash." Andrew Weissmann, what are we -- what are we entering into if this
goes to trial, as Trump has said he plans or to do the path he takes?

ANDREW WEISSMANN, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: So, you know, this is one where -- obviously,
Michael Cohen is a difficult witness. He is -- he is really not your ideal government witness for a
whole host of reasons, including the fact that he's still talking. And that differentiates him from,
you know, anybody who I've ever dealt with as a cooperating witness. But that being said, these
are really experienced state prosecutors.

They've, you know, they've been in this territory. This is their bread and butter doing these
kinds of cases. And this particular case, not that complicated. And so, this case is going to be -- I
think Susanne sort of mentioned is, I think, really going to be made on documents. And that
tape recording is one where there are a number of ways that can be used, not just for the fact
that you have Donald Trump himself on tape saying, you know, obviously, who sits there
instead of paying cash.

It was legit, you'd be like, I'm going to wire the money or I'm going to send them in a check. I
mean, that's -- it just makes no sense. But the fact that Michael Cohen was taping it shows that
Michael Cohen is not going to tape record it as somebody who's going to say, what are you
talking about? I don't know anything about this. What are you doing? And that's not what you
hear. What you hear is, wait a second, pay in cash.

I mean -- so, the very fact of the tape recording is something that the D.A.'S Office news to use
very well to corroborate -- to corroborate Michael Cohen. And then just one small caveat,
which is, you know, Donald Trump has not had his day in court in a criminal case. So, it is true
that there has been no reputation by Donald Trump. We have a lot of adjectives. We have a lot
of adverbs. We have a lot of epithets about the D.A. in the case.

But that's not an argument. That is not a fact, that is not a -- any legal argument that's been
made. But he will be -- have a, you know, place where he can do that. But so far, I totally agree
with you. We have just a lot of adjectives masquerading as some kind of factual or legal
reputation. And we haven't heard anything to refute this. And I do think it's one of the things
that media gets wrong is just sort of cover adjectives and adverbs as if it's anything. It's literally
nothing more than the paper it's printed on.

WALLACE: So, we will have a hard ban on adverbs around here on our view, Andrew
Weissmann. I want to read something -- I want to -- I don't want to start with this. But we are
going to spend some time today just exploring the sort of political response to the evidence
amassed by Alvin Bragg. We've talked a lot. You and I again on and off T.V. about his reluctance
to pick up and pursue this case with vigor.

He is -- he has done just that. But I do want to talk about the investigators who came before
Alvin Bragg because I think Republicans don't want anyone to know this. But the Southern
District of New York found this. "During the campaign, Michael Cohen played a central role in
two similar schemes to purchase the rights to stories each from women who claimed to have
had an affair with individual one, Donald Trump.

So, as to suppress the stories and thereby prevent them from influencing the election. With
respect to both payments, Michael Cohen acted with the intent to influence the 2016
presidential election. Cohen coordinated his actions with one or more members of the
campaign, including through meetings and phone calls about the fact nature and timing of the
payments.

In particular, and as Michael Cohen himself has now admitted, with respect to both payments
he acted in coordination with and at the direction of individual one, Donald J. Trump. My
question, Andrew, is whether we can assume that this line -- so, the Southern District of New
York investigated and found this. Michael Cohen coordinated his actions with one or more
members of the campaign including through meetings and phone calls about the fact nature
and timing of the payments."

These are the people some of them who were in before Alvin Bragg's grand jury, they include
Hope Hicks, they include Kellyanne Conway, they include David Pecker and others. Are we to
assume that Alvin Bragg match the investigative approach of SDNY albeit while pursuing
evidence to support crimes other than federal campaign finance violations?

[16:15:10]

WEISSMANN: Absolutely, I would think that that the federal case that you're outlining is a
subset of the work that was done by the D.A.'s office because remember, we know from Jeff
Berman's book that the attorney general, Attorney General Barr put a kibosh on pursuing that
case after Michael Cohen pleaded guilty. And to your point, Michael Cohen, admitted this was a
crime. His defense lawyer viewed this as a crime.

The prosecutors in the Southern District viewed this as a crime. The federal judge overseeing
the case accepted the plea as a crime, didn't say this is not a crime. And importantly, the
General Counsel of the Federal Election Committee viewed this as a crime. So, the claim now by
Donald Trump that he didn't think this was a crime is, you know, he's going to have a court of
law where he can make that argument.

And we'll see how that fares. But there is a record now, which as you say, Nicolle, so far, is
undisputed. There's no factual or legal basis that's been set out as to why this is not a crime.

WALLACE: Is there anything that stops Merrick Garland from once these crimes have been
charged in state court looking at this case or is there any obligation to answer why after Bill Barr
was long gone, nothing was ever done with facts and evidence that are strong enough for Bragg
to have brought his own case?

WEISSMANN: So, on the first question, there is something called the (INAUDIBLE) policy where
what it -- what that is intended to do is to not have duplicative federal and state charges. It's a
DOJ policy, where before you would have so called duplicative charges, you would examine
whether it really makes sense and is there some separate federal interest that needs to be
vindicated. Here where you do have a state charge going forward, you could imagine the Feds
not doing it.

I think more importantly, is I do think that is important to know why the current attorney
general did not go forward. Like Susanne, I have the same issue with respect to why there are
no tax charges, federal tax charges, as you recall, in the Trump Organization charges. I have
never seen a state case in an indictment. And then Letitia James and her civil complaint, they
screened out over and over again, that these are federal crimes, not just state crimes.

When Allen Weisselberg pleaded guilty, he's -- his guilty plea, his allocution was that these were
state and federal tax crimes. To Susanne's point, this is really her expertise. So, I've never seen
the state so loudly haul out that this warrants federal prosecution and we've seen nothing at
the federal level. I do think that, you know, as we've talked about, Jack Smith has a lot on his
plate. And this doesn't directly go within his remit.
But it would be nice to know what in God's green earth were they doing? And what, if anything,
are they doing? Because it really does seem like this is one where they dropped the ball.

WALLACE: Well -- and I guess the reason I keep -- I think Tim Miller called me a dog with a bone
on this, is that the disinformation campaign that will dominate the conversation on the right
will be predicated on the fact. Well, actually, let's do -- let's do Joe Tacopino for 500. Let me
show you what he's spinning to the 25 percent of the country that is -- that is prime to accept
the spin from Trump's side.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE TACOPINA, DONALD TRUMP'S LAWYER: We do know it centers around, you know, illegal,
very common confidentiality agreement that was signed years and years ago with Stormy
Daniels and between her attorneys and Michael Cohen. The only other precedent that's even
remotely close to John Edwards case which was prosecuted by federal authorities because it
was a federal election.

It was prosecuted because there was a donor involved as opposed to using personal funds, like
here, somehow a state prosecutor who doesn't even have jurisdiction over the federal elections
is prosecuted case. This was a personal resolution for a personal matter that would have been
made irrespective of the campaign.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: This, Mike Schmidt, is the Melania would have been mad defense. And it's -- I mean,
it may make sense in their personal life. I wouldn't know. But it's not rooted in any reality. And
the differentiator with the average case isn't the donor's role. It's the benefit to the campaign. I
mean, this is -- this is -- I guess this incorporates in a real big words for the Trump side to carry
some water on the -- on the right.

[16:20:09]

But that's not why Trump wasn't prosecuted as Andrew just said the campaign finance case
isn't brought for reasons the most we know about it is from Jeff Berman's book that a lot of
pressure came to bear.

MIKE SCHMIDT, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: The -- in 2005, the prescient New York Times said that
Joe Tacopino was to the legal community with Donald Trump is to the real estate community.

WALLACE: No. Why?

SCHMIDT: Because Joe Tacopino is very similar to Donald Trump. And Donald Trump has long
searched for the lawyers that will do what he wants him to do. And at times, he's found those
lawyers and at times people have gone along with what he wanted, and at times not. But this is
someone who really fits the bill. And there's a very glaring and important story about Joe
Tacopino that could give us some idea of how this is going to go forward.

Back, you know, six or seven years ago, he represented another person who was very similar to
Trump, who was impervious to the facts and was under investigation. That was Alex Rodriguez,
the baseball slugger. And in the course of that investigation that was done by Major League
Baseball, Tacopino didn't just try and defend Alex Rodriguez. He led a legal team that tried to
destroy Major League Baseball with Alex Rodriguez as his client going along with this.

They paid for protesters to stand outside the stadium. They had private investigators trying to
talk to the caddies of the current Commissioner Rob Manfred is from his golf course. They went
to really extraordinary lengths to do everything they could to pull the sport down with them.
And obviously, I -- Manhattan D.A.'s investigation is different than a Major League Baseball
investigation. But he went to extraordinary lengths.

This is not just -- this was not just a defense lawyer who was really trying to defend his client.
This was a defense lawyer who was trying to destroy the organization that was trying to hold
out Rodriguez accountable.

WALLACE: So, extrapolate that over what we should be girding ourselves for as he now
represents Donald Trump, who's already reposting menacing pictures with images of violence.
You've got Lindsey Graham with some unbelievably reckless tweets this morning about violence
toward law enforcement. And what does that portend to have this toxic combustion between
Joe Tacopino and Donald Trump?

SCHMIDT: I mean, it was the first thing that I thought about. You know, and I called, you know,
someone in baseball who had dealt with this today to sort of just check, say, you know, I
remember Tacopino being involved --

(CROSSTALK)

SCHMIDT: And it, you know, this -- it, you know, it's a really important sort of story that gives us
some sense of where this could be headed. And we've seen Trump do obviously extraordinary
things with his lawyers and try to get his lawyers to do that. But to Andrew's point, this will
really be the first time that he's in court. So, what will that look like? We had some of that with
the fight that went on over the documents down in Florida, with the special master and the
judge who initially sided with Trump.

But what will Donald Trump in court look like? Will he continue this type of behavior? Will the
judge have to step in and try and put a gag order in to try and tamp things down? We're headed
into a very unexpected, indifferent area where we're going to see Trump -- this is not like
impeachment, where the Republicans then get to go and redirect the narrative back to how
they want it. It's a whole different ballgame.
WALLACE: I want to press on this. This door that's been opened here. I mean -- and I guess,
make us debate. So, I go to dating. I mean, the idea that any of these lawyers think they're
going to be different, they're going to be the one. They're going to be the one that doesn't have
to hire a lawyer themselves. They're going to be the one that Trump listens to. They're going to
be the one that gets him out of trouble is a whole -- is a whole pathology that I think we should
probe a little bit.

No one's going anywhere. When we come back, we'll have that conversation. Plus, we'll bring
you up to date on the other threads that we've only touched on. That used to be a time when a
criminal indictment would sink and normal politicians' presidential candidacy because it's
Trump and because it's 2023. That may no longer be the case, not in Trump's Republican Party.
We'll talk about the party's reaction. Their reflexes to the disgraced ex-president.

And later in the show. Lightning rods on the far, far right are calling for protests in the streets of
my hometown of New York City. As security and local officials are bracing for the possibility of
violence.

[16:25:04]

A tense and scary situation just under 24 hours since the news first broke of Trump indictment.
DEADLINE: WHITE HOUSE continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere today.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WALLACE: An embarrassment of riches in terms of experts. Susanne Craig, Andrew Weissmann,

Charlie Sykes and Mike Schmidt are still with us. So, Charlie Sykes, pick up on Mr. Tacopino. I'm
reminded that he was Bernie Kerik's attorney before Bernie Kerik ended up going to prison. It is
a dicey or, you know, a roll of the dice to have a lawyer like this at a moment that is dicey for
the country but it's so on brand, it seems like an obvious choice for Trump.

CHARLIE SYKES, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: No, it does seem like an obvious choice. And I want to
pick up with something that both Andrew and Mike were emphasizing. The rules have changed
now. Donald Trump has spent years throwing out the adjectives and the slurs aimed at
prosecutors insulting judges. But next week, this will be the first time that Donald Trump is
insulting a judge who's presiding over a felony trial.

The rules have changed when Donald Trump is now a defendant in a -- in a trial like this. And
it's going to be interesting to see how that plays out. Because, you know, as Andrew points out,
it's one thing for him to put out statements with, you know, lots of adjectives and lots of
verbiage that don't mean anything at all. But now he's in a court of law where his freedom is at
risk, where truth actually will matter.

And so, having lawyers like the lawyers who's chosen who are given in making the comments
they make, it's one thing to go on cable television and say these things.
[16:30:05]

It's a very different thing when you're standing in front of a judge and I don't know whether or
not the --

END