Indictment of Donald J. Trump: Trump Likely to Be Arraigned on Tuesday (Published 2023) (2024)

Pinned

Trump prepares to surrender in New York, and the N.Y.P.D. braces for protests.

Dozens of reporters and camera crews camped out across the street on Friday, while 20 court officers stood at the courthouse entrances, monitoring activity on the street.

Mr. Trump intends to travel to New York on Monday and stay the night at Trump Tower, people familiar with his preparations said. He has no plans to hold a news conference or address the public while he is in New York, the people said.

Mr. Trump remained largely quiet on Friday at Mar-a-Lago, his resort in Florida, where he spent the day talking on the telephone with advisers. One of his lawyers, Joe Tacopina, said in a television interview that the former president would not take a plea deal and was prepared to go to trial, a typically defiant stance that is likely to endear him to his supporters, who see the prosecution as a politically motivated vendetta by Democrats.

Late on Friday afternoon, Mr. Trump burst out on Truth Social, the social media platform he founded, writing in all capital letters that Democrats were “INDICTING A TOTALLY INNOCENT MAN IN AN ACT OF OBSTRUCTION AND BLATANT ELECTION INTERFERENCE.” He concluded that it was all happening “WHILE OUR COUNTRY IS GOING TO HELL!”

The former president is expected to be arraigned in Manhattan criminal court on charges related to payments made just before the 2016 presidential election to buy the silence of a p*rn star who said she had an extramarital affair with him. The former president, who has denied the affair, has been charged with more than two dozen counts in a sealed indictment, according to two people familiar with the matter, although the exact charges remain unknown.

Conservative Republicans continued to criticize the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, whose office rebuked House Republicans for attempting to interfere in the case.

The case, which could drag on for months and whose outcome is far from clear, is likely to test the country’s institutions and the rule of law. It will also have deep repercussions for the 2024 campaign for the White House, a race in which Mr. Trump remains the Republican front-runner.

Mr. Trump has sought to capitalize on the criminal charges to energize his core supporters. On Thursday, he called Mr. Bragg “a disgrace” and denounced the indictment as “political persecution and election interference at the highest level in history.”

His message was repeated across the conservative media sphere on Friday by Republican politicians and pundits.

Mr. Trump was roundly defended on Fox News, including by hosts who had reviled him in private. Although the host Tucker Carlson said of Mr. Trump in early 2021, “I hate him passionately,” according to a text released as part of a defamation suit against Fox, on Thursday Mr. Carlson called the indictment “one in a long line of unprecedented steps that permanent Washington has taken to stop Donald Trump from holding office in a democracy.” He also said: “Probably not the best time to give up your AR-15.”

Even many of Mr. Trump’s potential rivals for the Republican presidential nomination snapped into line behind him in the hours after news of the indictment broke, looking more like allies than competitors. All passed on the opportunity to criticize the former president — and some rushed to his defense — in a sign of just how reluctant 2024 contenders are to directly confront him and antagonize his many millions of supporters in the party.

Mike Pence — the former vice president whose life was put at risk when Jan. 6 rioters sought him out after Mr. Trump blamed him for allowing Congress to ratify the results of the 2020 election — denounced the indictment for what he called “a campaign finance issue” as an “outrage” and a “political prosecution.”

Speaking at the National Review Institute in Washington, Mr. Pence said that Mr. Bragg’s prosecution “should be offensive to every American left, right and center,” and that he believed that “the American people will see this for what it is.”

Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, a potential presidential candidate who has clashed with Mr. Trump, also rushed to his defense, posting on Twitter that the indictment was “un-American” and amounted to “the weaponization of the legal system.”

A few in the G.O.P. remained silent, among them Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, and Senator John Thune, the second-ranking Senate Republican. Gov. Chris Sununu of New Hampshire, who is also flirting with a presidential run, appeared to be keeping mum, as well. So too was Chris Christie, the former New Jersey governor and one-time Trump ally who is considering a 2024 run for president and who recently vowed that he would never again support the former president.

The indictment in Manhattan concerns hush money payments made in the final days of the 2016 campaign to Stormy Daniels, a p*rnographic film star who had threatened to go public with her claim that she had a short affair with Mr. Trump a decade earlier.

Ms. Daniels was paid $130,000 not to speak publicly about her claims, and the payments were channeled through Mr. Trump’s fixer and personal lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, who has said Mr. Trump approved the scheme.

The Manhattan case is likely to hinge on the way Mr. Trump and his company, the Trump Organization, handled reimbursing Mr. Cohen. Internal Trump Organization records falsely classified the reimbursem*nts as legal expenses, helping conceal the purpose of the payments, according to Mr. Cohen. Mr. Trump’s lawyers deny this.

In New York, falsifying business records can be a felony if it is done to cover up another crime, and in this case prosecutors are expected to argue that the underlying crime was a violation of campaign finance law. The exact charges, however, will not be unsealed until Tuesday when Mr. Trump is brought before Justice Juan M. Merchan, a New York County jurist with 16 years on the bench, who has been assigned to handle the case.

Justice Merchan also oversaw the criminal tax fraud trial of Mr. Trump’s family real estate firm late last year.

On Friday, Mr. Trump took aim at Justice Merchan on Truth Social, claiming that the judge hated him and that he had “railroaded” Allen H. Weisselberg, a former executive of the Trump Organization who has pleaded guilty to tax fraud charges.

Mr. Trump is also under investigation in Georgia, where prosecutors in Fulton County are expected to make a decision soon on whether to seek an indictment against him and his allies over their efforts to interfere in the 2020 presidential election.

Mr. Trump famously made a call to the state secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, urging him to “find 11,780 votes,” which would have given him a victory in the state.

A special grand jury has heard evidence in the Georgia case and produced a final report, though its recommendations on charges remain under seal.

In Washington, a Justice Department special counsel is leading two separate investigations, into Mr. Trump’s broader actions to cling to power after his 2020 electoral defeat and into his hoarding of documents marked as classified after leaving office.

If the other criminal investigations result in charges, there is no guarantee that the New York case will be the first to go to trial.

“The fact that New York is first to indict does not mean it will be the first to try,” said Stephen Gillers, a New York University law professor. “A federal indictment will be swifter if it comes.”

Mr. Gillers noted that New York is more receptive to pretrial appeals than federal courts, meaning there will be many opportunities for Mr. Trump’s lawyers to delay a trial in the state by filing motions seeking, for instance, a change of venue or to remove a judge.

The Manhattan district attorney’s office is also under pressure from House Republicans, who have used their investigative power to demand the district attorney turn over documents and testimony related to the Trump investigation, an extraordinary attempt by members of Congress to intervene in a criminal inquiry.

Mr. Bragg’s office fired back in a letter on Friday, accusing three Republican committee chairmen who demanded documents — Representatives Jim Jordan of Ohio on the Judiciary Committee, James R. Comer of Kentucky on the Oversight Committee and Bryan Steil of Wisconsin on the Administration Committee — of aiding a campaign to denigrate the district attorney’s office.

The letter noted that before being indicted, Mr. Trump had used his social media platform to insult Mr. Bragg and threaten “death and destruction” if he were charged.

“You could use the stature of your office to denounce these attacks and urge respect for the fairness of our justice system and for the work of the impartial grand jury,” wrote Leslie Dubeck, the general counsel for the district attorney’s office.

“Instead, you and many of your colleagues have chosen to collaborate with Mr. Trump’s efforts to vilify and denigrate the integrity of elected state prosecutors and trial judges,” Ms. Dubeck wrote.

Reporting was contributed by Maggie Haberman, Ben Protess, William K. Rashbaum, Neil Vigdor, Ben Shpigel, Richard Fausset, Danny Hakim and Chelsia Rose Marcius in New York and by Luke Broadwater, Jonathan Swan and Charlie Savage in Washington.

Why was Trump indicted by the Manhattan D.A. over hush money, but not by the Justice Department?

The prosecutors and the Justice Department have never said publicly why Mr. Trump was not charged, but some of the reasons appear to concern how the prosecutors viewed Mr. Cohen, who is expected to be involved in the case brought by the district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg.

In 2018, the Southern District prosecutors brought charges against Mr. Cohen for paying $130,000 in hush money to the p*rn star Stormy Daniels during the 2016 presidential campaign. During that investigation, the federal prosecutors concluded that Mr. Trump had directed Mr. Cohen to pay off Ms. Daniels to keep her quiet about a sexual liaison she said she had with Mr. Trump. He has denied her assertion.

The Southern District prosecutors accused Mr. Cohen of violating federal campaign finance laws, arguing that the payments to ensure the silence of Ms. Daniels, which were later reimbursed by Mr. Trump, amounted to an illegal donation to the Trump campaign.

But the Southern District declined, at the time, to file charges against Mr. Trump.

The federal prosecutors, and later Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, determined that prosecuting him would have violated a Nixon-era directive from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel that was interpreted as preventing the indictment of a sitting president.

That protection disappeared the moment Mr. Trump left office.

Mr. Trump’s defenders have seized on the fact that no federal charges have been brought against the former president in connection with the hush money payment to portray the actions of Mr. Bragg as motivated by partisanship.

The federal prosecutors in Manhattan appear to have briefly considered reviving the inquiry into Mr. Trump in January 2021, just before President Biden was sworn in, but decided against doing so, according to the recent book “Untouchable,” by Elie Honig, a former Southern District prosecutor. (The decision was made in New York, and senior department staff members in Washington played no role in the decision, current and former officials said.)

Nicholas Biase, a spokesman for the Southern District, declined to comment.

The decision not to indict appeared to be rooted in lingering concerns about Mr. Cohen’s credibility and cooperation as a government witness.

The Southern District prosecutors had informed Mr. Cohen that he had to provide a comprehensive accounting of his conduct as a condition of a cooperation deal, but he declined to be debriefed on other uncharged criminal conduct, if any, in his past, the prosecutors said in a 2018 court filing.

That ran afoul of a longstanding policy followed by the Southern District regarding cooperation agreements, according to current and former Justice Department officials: A potential cooperating witness must divulge the entire range of their criminal conduct over their lifetime to get a deal.

It is a rule “that not every U.S. attorney’s office uses” but has become an essential requirement to bringing cases in the Southern District, one of the country’s busiest and most scrutinized legal venues, said Joyce Vance, a former federal prosecutor and University of Alabama law professor, in a post on Substack.

Such an accounting must “encompass their entire criminal history, as well as any and all information they possess about crimes committed by both themselves and others,” the Southern District prosecutors wrote in the 2018 court filing that seemed to lament Mr. Cohen’s recalcitrance. The prosecutors said they had found Mr. Cohen to be “forthright and credible.”

“Had Cohen actually cooperated, it could have been fruitful,” the prosecutors wrote. But because he did not, the prosecutors said, the “inability to fully vet his criminal history and reliability impact his utility as a witness.”

By July 2019, in another court filing, Southern District prosecutors signaled they were unlikely to file additional charges in the hush-money investigation, reporting they had “effectively concluded” their inquiry into efforts to buy the silence of Ms. Daniels and another woman who said she had an affair with Mr. Trump.

They did not include any explanation. But in private, federal prosecutors cited concerns that Mr. Trump’s lack of basic knowledge of campaign finance laws would make it hard to prove intent, according to three people familiar with the situation.

Advertisem*nt

SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT

In pockets of Trump country, the reaction is relatively subdued.

Fewer than a dozen people had staked out the overpass, and when approached by a reporter, none would share their names. Minutes later, the sparse group quietly dispersed, taking their banners. A few said they might return on Tuesday when Mr. Trump is expected to surrender to the authorities in New York.

While pundits on Fox News, Newsmax and other conservative media outlets reacted with outrage to the first indictment of an American president, the response in other quarters was relatively subdued.

Whether because of shifting loyalties as some people line up behind other politicians; deliberate efforts by some Republican leaders to tamp down indignation; the fact that news of the indictment had been telegraphed for weeks, potentially blunting the shock; or simply a product of outrage fatigue after more than two years of Trump-related chaos, the general temperature of the country seemed well below the boiling point.

Of course, more strident responses are still possible. Early on Friday morning, Marjorie Taylor Greene, the combative Republican congresswoman from Georgia, announced on Twitter that she planned to travel to New York on Tuesday “to protest the unconstitutional WITCH HUNT!”

Voices from even further to the right, such as Pete Santilli, a podcaster who participated in armed standoffs with federal agents in Nevada and Oregon nearly a decade ago, warned that followers of President Biden “are going to come and kill you!”

Others shared fanciful images depicting President Biden, Hillary Clinton and Dr. Anthony S. Fauci being arrested, and concerns about threats to the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, prompted the advocacy group Fair and Just Prosecution to put out a statement saying that “indefensible threats” to Mr. Bragg’s safety “are likely to escalate.”

But, for now at least, the violent tone appeared to be limited to the margins.

Stephen K. Bannon, the former Trump adviser, was away from the set of his popular podcast, “War Room,” when the news broke. Among the former president’s most vociferous boosters, he remained silent about the news until late in the evening, when he dropped three ominous, but distinctly vague, posts on Gettr, his preferred social media platform. “Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind,” one post read, linking to an hours-old article about the indictment.

When Mr. Bannon took the microphone again Friday morning, he celebrated the fact that Glenn Beck, the right-wing pundit and a vocal supporter of Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, had donned a MAGA hat while appearing on the popular Tucker Carlson show on Fox News the night before. “Have we crossed the Rubicon because of this?” Mr. Bannon wondered aloud.

On Twitter and the social messaging app Telegram, many reliable defenders of Mr. Trump expressed considerably more outrage at gun control protests in Nashville after the deadly shooting at a private Christian school in the city. That event drew hundreds of people, who stood in the State Capitol chanting, “Save our children!”

Others focused their energies on grievances against Mr. DeSantis, a likely top rival to Mr. Trump for the Republican presidential nomination. One conspiracy theory, espoused by right-wing influencers including Mike Cernovich, suggested that supporters of the governor — desperate to halt the polling boost that the threat of prosecution had given Mr. Trump — had spread false rumors that the grand jury had declined to sign an indictment.

Late on Thursday, journalists far outnumbered protesters outside Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan, while outside Mar-a-Lago no more than two dozen people gathered on the shoulder of a causeway leading to the resort. Milling about in shorts and MAGA hats, they waved the stars and stripes, Trump banners and the Gadsden Flag while chatting with television news reporters.

By Friday morning, the crowd had shrunk to barely a dozen. An oversize American flag that is always hung outside the entrance to Mar-a-Lago had been lowered, during the night, to half-staff.

Joe Capozzi contributed reporting.

The judge who oversaw the tax fraud case against Trump’s business is expected to preside over his arraignment.

A jurist with 16 years on the bench, he oversaw the only consequential criminal trial to date involving the former president, and Justice Merchan’s rulings likely helped determine the jury’s guilty verdict. Now he is expected to preside over Mr. Trump’s arraignment in Manhattan Supreme Court in the case involving his role in a hush-money payment to the p*rn star Stormy Daniels.

Mr. Trump took aim at Justice Merchan on Friday, writing on Truth Social, the social network he founded, that he had “railroaded” Allen Weisselberg, the former chief financial executive of the Trump Organization, who is serving the final weeks of a 100-day sentence in New York City’s Rikers Island jail complex after pleading guilty to tax fraud charges in the case.

Referring to the arraignment, Trump wrote, “The Judge ‘assigned’ to my Witch Hunt Case, a ‘Case’ that has NEVER BEEN CHARGED BEFORE, HATES ME.”

Justice Merchan is unlikely to be fazed. During the Trump Organization’s five-week trial last year, he maintained an order that is often lacking elsewhere in state court, in what can be a rough-and-tumble practice of criminal law.

Justice Merchan was born in Bogotá, Colombia. He came to the United States with his family when he was 6 years old, and grew up poor in Jackson Heights, Queens, according to people familiar with his background.

In Colombia, his father was a military officer who later served in the country’s intelligence service, the people said, and after coming to New York, Justice Merchan worked as a night dishwasher at the old Americana Hotel in Manhattan. His mother worked in New York at a range of jobs, including packaging food for airline meals and working in zipper and toy factories.

The youngest of six children and the first in his family to go to college, he began working when he was 9, carrying groceries for tips, and then held jobs through high school that included washing dishes at a diner and delivering kosher meat. In college, he worked as a night manager at a hotel.

He attended Baruch College but dropped out to work as an internal auditor at a real estate firm, the United Nations Development Corporation. Several years later, he returned to earn his business degree before going to law school. He worked to put himself through college — the result, he later told people, was terrible grades.

He began his legal career in 1994 as an assistant district attorney in Manhattan after graduating from Hofstra University School of Law. After five years conducting trials and prosecuting financial fraud cases, he moved to the State Attorney General’s office, where he held positions overseeing civil cases on Long Island. Mayor Michael Bloomberg appointed him to the bench in Bronx Family Court in 2006, and since 2009, he has been an acting justice in State Supreme Court, presiding over felony criminal trials.

The judge is no stranger to high-profile or complex financial cases, but the largely staid proceedings of the tax fraud trial were a far cry from some of the other cases that have garnered media attention in his court.

For example, in one murder case, a Senegalese man tried to call an expert witness prosecutors identified as a witch doctor to testify that he killed his ex-girlfriend while under the influence of evil spirits. He also presided over the trial of a suburban woman accused of running a $2,000-an-hour escort service whom tabloids called “The Soccer Mom Madam.”

Justice Merchan’s work ethic was cited by several lawyers who have appeared before him. In addition to handling criminal trials in State Supreme Court, Justice Merchan also presides over the Manhattan Mental Health Court and the Veterans Treatment Court, which provide special services to nonviolent defendants.

“He is someone who reads every word on every page of every filing and every footnote — and then the cases that you cite to him,” said Jose A. Fanjul, a former Manhattan assistant district attorney who got to know Justice Merchan when he prosecuted a four-month white-collar fraud trial in the judge’s court. “His fidelity to the law and to getting it right lends to him this sort of moral purpose of what he’s doing that makes it a joy to practice in front of him.”

Advertisem*nt

SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT

Here are the prominent arguments for and against the indictment.

THE SKEPTICS:

The Economist

The London-based Economist worried that a prosecution would act as “fuel for a movement that seemed to be flagging,” noting that Mr. Trump had used his expected indictment as a fund-raising tool.

In an editorial with the headline, “Prosecuting Donald Trump over Stormy Daniels Looks Like a Mistake,” the Economist argued that the case against him is not strong enough and that half the country will think “he is being victimized by prosecutors.”

The Economist said that Mr. Trump is still a threat to America and the rest of the West, but warned that “anyone who thinks now is the moment when he finally gets his comeuppance will be sorely disappointed.”

The Wall Street Journal

The Journal condemned Mr. Trump’s indictment as a “sad day for the country, with political ramifications that are unpredictable and probably destructive.”

In an editorial titled “Pandora’s Donald Trump Prosecution,” the Journal questioned both the timing of the charges and the precedent, focusing its criticism on the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, for reviving a case that federal prosecutors did not act on seven years ago.

“Mr. Bragg is busting a political norm that has stood for 230 years,” the editorial said. “Once a former president and current candidate is indicted, some local Republican prosecutor will look to make a name for himself by doing the same to a Democrat.”

The newspaper said that the country hardly needs “a case in which partisans line up on either side like a political O.J. Simpson trial. The prosecution must be seen by most of the country as an example of fair-minded justice.”

The Washington Post

The Post expressed concern about the strength of the case in an editorial headlined, “The Trump Indictment Is a Poor Test Case for Prosecuting a Former President.”

It noted that in a “long list of alleged violations” that the charges Mr. Trump faces in New York are “perhaps the least compelling.” The charges are expected to include falsifying business records, which is a felony if done in service of another crime, such as a campaign finance violations.

It called prosecutors’ strategy “novel” and warned that courts may “regard it with skepticism.”

“This prosecution is now bound to be the test case for any future former president, as well as, of course, proceedings against this former president in particular — of which there are plenty,” it said.

THE SUPPORTERS:

The Boston Globe

The Globe called Thursday “a sad but necessary day for America,” saying that Mr. Bragg “has put life into the principle that no one is above the law. Any law.”

“Failing to prosecute him because of his former position would be a dangerous affront to the rule of law, regardless of the spin he or those in his corner put on it,” it said. ”It is particularly important, given Trump’s oft-stated belief that laws don’t apply to him, for the legal system to demonstrate otherwise.”

The Globe acknowledged that critics would call the prosecution politically motivated, “unimportant or trivial,” but said that “there is every reason for Americans to put greater trust in the legal system than political punditry.”

The Idaho Statesman

The Statesman, the largest newspaper in one of America’s reddest states, highlighted in an editorial how Mr. Trump should be held to the “same standards as ordinary people,” much as in other democracies.

“If there’s evidence, you’re charged and you show up in court,” it said. “Trump is also entitled to the presumption of innocence, just like everyone else.”

The editorial, noting that the former prime minister of France, Nicolas Sarkozy, was sentenced to prison for campaign finance violations, praised our founders for anticipating such a possibility in America by including in the Constitution a provision that discusses how an impeached president should be subject to a trial, and punishment, according to law.

“No one should be above the law, not even presidents,” the editorial said.

The Miami Herald

Calling Mr. Trump’s indictment neither a time “for his enemies to gloat” nor one “for his fervent supporters to violently take to the streets,” the Herald said that other prosecutors might now be emboldened to pursue charges against him.

The Herald also called the indictment “a terrible moment for the country,” since it would widen the country’s divide, but said “if sufficient evidence is there, it is the right thing to do.”

The Herald seized on the political ramifications for Florida’s governor, Ron DeSantis, who is likely planning a run for president in 2024. With the number and the extent of the charges against Mr. Trump are not yet known — and with the outcome far from evident — it is possible, the Herald said, that the indictment could facilitate Mr. DeSantis’s path to the White House.

Advertisem*nt

SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT

“Besides the uniqueness of Trump being the former president, it is extremely rare for a case to begin in state court with an indictment,” he said. “Probably 99 percent of cases, felonies as well as misdemeanors, begin with an arrest. In the typical felony, an arrest is made and then the case is adjourned for the prosecutor to present the case to the grand jury and to try to obtain an indictment.”

McConnell is among few high-profile Republicans to stay silent on Trump’s indictment.

Even as top House Republicans, including Speaker Kevin McCarthy, rushed to condemn the indictment of Mr. Trump in a hush-money case, Mr. McConnell has avoided weighing in. But while Mr. McConnell represents only a sliver of the party, he’s not alone.

John Thune, the Senate’s No. 2 Republican, whose criticism of G.O.P. attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election had drawn Mr. Trump’s ire, has also remained mum about the former president’s indictment.

Mr. Thune’s office did not provide a comment when reached on Friday, and a spokesman for Mr. McConnell did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Here are other high-profile Republicans who appear to be avoiding commenting on Mr. Trump’s prosecution:

• Gov. Kristi Noem of South Dakota, an ally of the former president who has been discussed as a potential running mate for his 2024 White House run. A spokesman for Ms. Noem did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Friday.

• Liz Cheney, one of Mr. Trump’s harshest critics in the Republican Party. The former Wyoming representative lost a primary last August to a Trump-backed challenger after voting to impeach Mr. Trump. A spokesman for Ms. Cheney said on Friday that she had no plans to comment about Mr. Trump’s impending arrest at this time.

• Chris Christie, the former New Jersey governor who is considering a 2024 run for president and recently vowed that he would never support Mr. Trump again. A spokesman for Mr. Christie highlighted a Fox News appearance by him before the indictment, during which Mr. Christie called the Manhattan district attorney’s investigation “partisan.” Mr. Christie is also set to appear on “This Week” on ABC on Sunday, the spokesman said.

• Gov. Chris Sununu of New Hampshire, who is also flirting with a presidential run, appears to be keeping mum as well. His office did not immediately respond to a message on Friday.

• Larry Hogan, another former G.O.P. governor who has criticized Mr. Trump in the past, also appeared to be abstaining. Mr. Hogan, from Maryland, announced this month that he would not run for president in 2024. A request for comment for Mr. Hogan was left on Friday with a representative for his super PAC.

Mr. McConnell, the chamber’s minority leader from Kentucky, has been sharply critical of Mr. Trump in the past. Mr. McConnell had previously admonished Mr. Trump as “practically and morally responsible for provoking the events” of the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol attack.

The charges against Mr. Trump now, which have yet to be unsealed, center on payments that prosecutors say Mr. Trump funneled to Stormy Daniels, a p*rn star.

Maggie Haberman and Alyce McFadden contributed reporting.

Advertisem*nt

SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT

Ivanka Trump, after hours of silence, issues a muted statement: ‘I love my father.’

She posted a short message on Instagram, saying simply: “I love my father, and I love my country. Today, I am pained for both. I appreciate the voices across the political spectrum expressing support and concern.”

Mr. Kushner, for his part, did not comment until a previously scheduled public appearance Friday morning. “As Americans, it’s very troubling to me to see the leader of the opposition party be indicted,” he said. “And I think that that shows obviously the fear that the Democrats have of Trump and the political strength that he has.”

The statement from Ms. Trump was in sharp contrast with those of her brothers. Mr. Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., responded to the news immediately on Thursday on his online show “Triggered,” describing the grand jury’s vote to indict his father after a monthslong process as “stuff that would make Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, it would make them blush.”

His second son, Eric Trump, wrote on Twitter that the indictment was “third world prosecutorial misconduct” and “the opportunistic targeting of a political opponent in a campaign year.” (Mr. Trump has announced his presidential campaign, but the election is not until next year.)

Hours later, on Sean Hannity’s Fox News show, Eric Trump made no distinction between law enforcement and his father’s political opponents, describing them as “evil” and “wicked.” He denounced “the weaponization of politics and of the justice system” and said, “At some point the guy deserves a pass” — in response to which Mr. Hannity complained that Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential candidate in 2016, “got a pass.”

During his 2016 campaign, Mr. Trump repeatedly said Mrs. Clinton should be prosecuted, and the chant “lock her up” became a staple at his rallies. He has also called for retribution against his political opponents if he is elected again in 2024. (A yearslong investigation of Mrs. Clinton’s use of email found no systemic or deliberate mishandling of classified information.)

Mr. Trump’s younger daughter, Tiffany Trump, had not said anything about the indictment as of late Friday morning. But, as she rarely speaks publicly, her silence was not unusual.

Michael C. Bender and Maggie Haberman contributed reporting.

Here’s where the Trump election investigation in Georgia stands.

Legal experts say that Mr. Trump and others appear to be at “substantial risk” of prosecution for violating a number of Georgia statutes, including the state’s racketeering law.

In May, a special grand jury in Fulton County was sworn in, and heard testimony from 75 witnesses behind closed doors over a series of months. The jurors produced a final report, but the most important elements of it — including recommendations on who should be indicted, and on what charges — remains under seal.

However, its forewoman, Emily Kohrs, has said that indictments were recommended for more than a dozen people. Asked in an interview if those included Mr. Trump, she declined to answer directly, but said: “You’re not going to be shocked. It’s not rocket science.”

Mr. Trump has assailed the proceedings in Georgia. His lawyers have referred to them as a “clown show.” In March, they filed a motion seeking to suppress any evidence or testimony derived from the special grand jury’s investigation. The motion also asks that the office of Fani T. Willis, the Fulton County district attorney and a Democrat, be disqualified from the case.

On Monday, a judge ordered Ms. Willis’s office to file a written response to the motion by May 1, to include an opinion on whether or not a hearing is necessary to address the issues.

A number of legal scholars believe that the motion has little chance of derailing prosecutors’ work.

Ms. Willis will ultimately decide what charges to seek and then bring them before a regular grand jury. Her decision is expected by May.

Advertisem*nt

SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT

A woman who got hush money before Stormy Daniels may play a role in Trump’s trial.

In August 2016, Ms. McDougal reached a $150,000 agreement with American Media Inc., publisher of The National Enquirer, which was run by Mr. Trump’s friend David Pecker. Under the agreement, American Media bought the rights to her story in order to suppress it, the company later admitted in a deal with federal prosecutors. That practice was known in the tabloid world as “catch and kill.”

Michael Cohen, Mr. Trump’s fixer, pleaded guilty in 2018 to federal campaign finance violations in connection with the payments to Ms. Daniels, a p*rn star, and Ms. McDougal. Mr. Cohen made the $130,000 payment to Ms. Daniels and helped to arrange the deal with Ms. McDougal. He and federal prosecutors have said he did so at the direction of Mr. Trump.

It is unclear whether the deal with Ms. McDougal will figure into the specific charges — which are still unknown — in the Manhattan district attorney’s indictment of Mr. Trump. But the episode could still be used in a possible trial by prosecutors, who questioned witnesses about the agreement with Ms. McDougal in the grand jury hearings leading to Mr. Trump’s indictment, according to people familiar with those proceedings.

Mr. Cohen and Mr. Pecker, both of whom were involved with the McDougal agreement, testified several times before the grand jury.

If Mr. Trump goes to trial, Alvin L. Bragg, the district attorney, could use the deal to demonstrate a larger pattern of how he persuaded allies to make payoffs to protect him.

That could enable prosecutors to bolster their theory that the payments to both women were intended to benefit his campaign, not protect his family, and thus violated federal or state campaign law. American Media admitted, in a 2018 agreement to avoid federal prosecution, that it had made the McDougal payment to influence the election.

That payment also could prove Mr. Trump’s awareness of what had been done on his behalf by allowing prosecutors to introduce a September 2016 mobile-phone recording that Mr. Cohen made of a conversation with Mr. Trump. In the call, they discussed Mr. Trump’s repaying American Media for the rights to Ms. McDougal’s story and other dirt on the candidate that Mr. Pecker had suppressed.

“So what do we got to pay for this? One-fifty?” Mr. Trump asked, according to a copy of the recording.

The repayment plan never came to fruition.

According to Ms. McDougal’s account, she and Mr. Trump spent time in his bungalow at the Beverly Hills Hotel, at his golf course in New Jersey, in his Trump Tower apartment, and at the Lake Tahoe golf tournament where he also met Ms. Daniels. Ms. McDougal has said she ended the affair because she felt guilty about it.

In 2016, with Mr. Trump seeking the presidency and her modeling career flagging, Ms. McDougal hired a Beverly Hills lawyer, Keith Davidson, to help monetize the story of their affair. The lawyer approached The National Enquirer, whose executives briefed Mr. Cohen about Ms. McDougal’s efforts. In late June, Mr. Trump personally called Mr. Pecker, appealing for help in keeping Ms. McDougal quiet, according to an account Mr. Pecker previously gave federal prosecutors.

The tabloid did not bite until Ms. McDougal moved to go public with an interview about Mr. Trump on ABC News. In the August 2016 deal, American Media agreed to pay Ms. McDougal $150,000 for the rights to her story about Mr. Trump. To camouflage the real purpose of the deal, the company also guaranteed she would appear on two magazine covers and received the right to publish fitness columns under her name, according to a copy of her contract and people familiar with the events.

Initially, Mr. Cohen and Mr. Pecker moved ahead with a plan for American Media to transfer the rights to Ms. McDougal’s story to Mr. Trump for $125,000 through shell companies. Mr. Pecker killed that deal based on legal advice, people familiar with the matter have said.

Here’s how indictments work in the United States’ legal system.

When a person is indicted in a criminal court in the United States, it means that a grand jury composed of residents chosen at random believed there was enough evidence to charge that person with a crime. Such panels, generally convened by judges at the request of prosecutors, meet for weeks, and can hear evidence in a variety of cases. The judge is not present during grand jury proceedings after the jurors are chosen, and jurors are able to ask the witnesses questions.

Unlike a criminal trial, where a jury has to reach a unanimous verdict, a grand jury can issue an indictment with a simple majority. In this case, there were 23 grand jurors, meaning at least 12 had to agree on an indictment.

Grand jurors hear evidence and testimony only from prosecutors and the witnesses that they choose to present. They do not hear from the defense or usually from the person accused, unlike in a criminal trial where proceedings are adversarial. (Defendants in New York have the right to answer questions in front of the grand jury before they are indicted, but they rarely testify. Mr. Trump declined.) That one-sided arrangement often leads defense lawyers to minimize indictments and argue that prosecutors could persuade jurors to “indict a ham sandwich,” a proverbial phrase that former Vice President Mike Pence used on CNN Thursday night.

As in other criminal cases, the exact charges against Mr. Trump are under seal and will not be revealed until he is brought to Manhattan Criminal Court for a formal arraignment, which is expected to happen on Tuesday.

At that point, the indictment will be unsealed, initiating the case’s next phase. Prosecutors will share their evidence with defense attorneys, who often ask a judge to dismiss the case on various legal grounds.

A trial is not guaranteed and may not be scheduled for months, as both sides will most likely argue over the merits of the case and what evidence can be presented to a jury.

Advertisem*nt

SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT

Bragg’s office criticizes top Republicans for aiding ‘Trump’s efforts to vilify’ him.

The office’s letter noted that before being indicted, Mr. Trump had used his social media platform to denigrate Mr. Bragg, and had threatened “death and destruction” if he were to be charged.

“You could use the stature of your office to denounce these attacks and urge respect for the fairness of our justice system and for the work of the impartial grand jury,” Leslie Dubeck, the general counsel for the district attorney’s office, wrote.

“Instead, you and many of your colleagues have chosen to collaborate with Mr. Trump’s efforts to vilify and denigrate the integrity of elected state prosecutors and trial judges,” Ms. Dubeck wrote, describing as unfounded the three members’ allegations that the investigation was politically motivated.

The letter, addressed to Representatives Jim Jordan of Ohio, chairman of the Judiciary Committee; James R. Comer of Kentucky, chairman of the Oversight and Accountability Committee; and Bryan Steil of Wisconsin, chairman of the Administration Committee, repeated portions of an earlier one Ms. Dubeck had sent them, calling the Republican request for confidential information about the investigation unprecedented.

“Like any other defendant, Mr. Trump is entitled to challenge these charges in court,” she wrote, adding, “What neither Mr. Trump nor Congress may do is interfere with the ordinary course of proceedings in New York State.”

Ms. Dubeck and the Republicans have traded two letters apiece since Mr. Trump’s arrest prediction on March 18, which prompted his political allies to rush to his side.

Responding to news of the indictment on Thursday evening, Mr. Jordan tweeted one word: “Outrageous.”

The back-and-forth highlights the politically charged nature of Mr. Trump’s indictment, which has thrown the 2024 presidential race into new territory and threatens to test national and state institutions and the rule of law.

The Republican effort to influence Mr. Bragg’s investigation mimics Mr. Trump’s own efforts, while he occupied the White House, to tar law enforcement officials as partisan actors motivated solely by politics.

Mr. Trump continued that line of attack on Thursday. In a statement, he called Mr. Bragg a “disgrace” and said “this Witch-Hunt will backfire massively on Joe Biden,” who defeated him in the 2020 presidential race, has had nothing to do with the district attorney’s investigation and has not commented on the indictment.

Concluding her letter, Ms. Dubeck urged the congressional Republicans to withdraw their demand for information about the investigation “and let the criminal justice process proceed without unlawful political interference.”

But she said that the office was willing to meet with the chairmen or their staffs, and asked for a list of questions for Mr. Bragg and a description of the types of documents they were requesting.