Former President Trump’s ex-attorney Joe Tacopina in a Sunday interview strongly pushed back against claims that Trump’s New York hush money case was a result of the “weaponization” of the justice system.
“This is a state case. This is different than the Jack Smith cases, OK? This is not a federal prosecution. Joe Biden or anyone from his Justice Department have absolutely zero to do with the Manhattan district attorney’s office. They have no jurisdiction over him. They have no contacts with him. They have no control over him,” Tacopina said in an interview on MSNBC’s “PoliticsNation” with the Rev. Al Sharpton.
“So to say that Joe Biden brought this case is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve heard. We know that’s not the case. And even Trump’s lawyers know that’s not the case,” he added.
Tacopina noted that presidents lack power to direct a state case in the same way they lack the authority to issue pardons for state crimes.
“So people who say that, it’s scary, that they really don’t know the law or what they’re talking about. I mean, to suggest that Joe Biden would be behind the Manhattan district attorney’s prosecution is silly,” he added.
Tacopina drew a sharp distinction between the argument that President Biden was somehow involved in the New York case to the argument that the case would not have been brought against any other defendant. He said he is more sympathetic to the second argument.
Still, he said, the fact the jury of 12 New Yorkers convicted Trump stands on its own.
“The jury’s verdict is different. And that sort of also validates the Manhattan district attorney’s prosecution to a degree. It certainly removes it from the ‘political witch hunt of Joe Biden,’ right. I mean, Joe Biden didn’t know who these jurors were, right? No one knew who these jurors were,” he said.
Trump was convicted on 34 felony counts of falsifying business documents to cover up a a scheme to shield the American public from potentially damaging information ahead of the 2016 presidential election. Republicans have ripped the decision, with some arguing the case is a political prosecution that will be overturned.