Former U.S. President Donald Trump has signaled he will not testify before the grand jury in New York as part of the ongoing inquiry into the six-figure payment made to an adult film star. The revelation came from Trump’s attorney, who spoke with CNN about the matter and outlined the current stance of the defense team.
Attorney Joe Tacopina, who is also appearing on ABC, stated that there are no plans for Trump to appear before the grand jury at this time. Reports indicate that Susan Necheles, a prosecutor reviewing the case alongside the former president’s counsel, has engaged in discussions with the district attorney’s office during this phase of the investigation.
Tacopina conveyed to ABC that the Trump camp has not yet decided to participate in the grand jury process. He noted that no deadline has been issued and that the decision would require careful consideration by the defense team before any commitment is made. The statement left room for future developments as prosecutors and defense attorneys continue to navigate the case timeline.
When asked whether the possibility of impeachment might arise, Tacopina offered a cautious response, expressing hope that justice prevails. He suggested that if the evidence supports accountability, then appropriate action would follow, whereas unfounded accusations would be avoided.
The New York Attorney General’s Office invited Trump to testify before a grand jury during the current week, a move that underscores the seriousness with which prosecutors view the matter. Observers have noted that this invitation could influence the trajectory of the investigation, potentially shaping whether it concludes without charges or moves toward formal indictment at a later stage.
Analysts have discussed how such a grand jury opportunity could alter the political landscape in the lead-up to the next presidential election. The case remains significant because it is connected to a high-profile figure who continues to be a central figure in U.S. politics, and it bears potential implications for the 2024 campaign dynamics, given Trump’s status as a leading Republican contender.
The Manhattan district attorney’s inquiry, which has stretched across nearly five years, centers on allegations surrounding a $130,000 payment, reportedly to Stormy Daniels, a well-known adult film actress, and the broader questions about whether financial transactions were used to influence elections. The defense has portrayed the payment as a private matter rather than a probe into campaign financing, emphasizing the distinction between personal funds and campaign contributions.
Tacopina explained to ABC that the funds were provided from Trump’s personal resources, intended to address what the defense describes as an attempt at extortion. He stressed that there was no linkage between the payment and any campaign strategy or decision, and that the funds were not an expenditure intended to influence the political process. The lawyer argued that the actions were meant to prevent embarrassing disclosures that could affect the president and his family, particularly for their younger son, and that such actions did not violate campaign finance laws as they stood at the time of the events described.