The grand jury is investigating Trump’s attempt to pay off the former president, Stormy Daniels, with a non-prosecution agreement

The grand jury is investigating the role that Trump has played in a scheme to pay off Stormy Daniels before the election.

If the grand jury does not hear the case again for several weeks, it will pause what had been a wave of anticipation that a former president could be indicted for the first time in American history. It turned out Trump was wrong in predicting he would be arrested a week ago, despite reports about security preparations being made.

No. Trump posted on his social media to predict he would be arrested last Tuesday, along with a call for his supporters to protest that echoed his comments after he lost the 2020 election in the lead-up to January 6.

He continually accuses the Manhattan District Attorney of being involved in the investigation of him in Washington, DC and Georgia. A week ago he warned that his arrest would lead to death and destruction in the country.

“The new weapon being used by out of control, unhinged Democrats to cheat on elections is criminally investigating a candidate,” Trump said at a rally in Waco, Texas, on Saturday.

Bragg is investigating Trump over the reimbursement of a $130,000 payment Trump’s former lawyer and fixer, Michael Cohen, made to Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election for her silence about an alleged affair with Trump a decade earlier. Trump denied the affair.

The district attorney had been investigating Trump since January, but it appeared to be nearing an end after Robert Costello testified for the president on March 20.

On Monday, the former National Enquirer publisher arrived at the Manhattan courthouse. He was a major player in the scheme and helped negotiate the payment for American Media Inc. The non-prosecution agreement was signed by the two parties.

Pecker’s testimony suggests the district attorney’s office may have felt the need to rebut the testimony of Costello, who claimed Cohen had made the payment to Daniels on his own.

Judicial prosecutors are probing the use of classified documents by the vice president in the run up to the US Capitol insurrection

The charges are expected to be under seal if Trump is indicted. Trump’s attorneys would then likely be notified and preparations would be made for Trump to travel to New York to surrender and hear the charges.

There have been security preparations underway for several weeks now among multiple law enforcement agencies about how security for a potential Trump indictment would be handled in Manhattan.

Bragg has made it clear to the public that they will be able to know if or not Trump will be charged once the investigation is over.

A federal judge opened the way for a former vice president to testify against the current president. The judge’s ruling is still under seal but he stated that the Vice President must appear before a grand jury to answer questions about his conversations with Trump. Such an appearance would allow prosecutors to seek potentially damning evidence, under oath, about fierce pressure Trump imposed on Pence to thwart the transfer of power to President Joe Biden.

But the judge said – in a ruling that remains under seal – that Pence can still decline to answer questions related to his actions on January 6 itself, when he was serving as president of the Senate for the certification of the 2020 presidential election.

Smith has had victories in the past when he seeks to obtain testimony from Trump’s former and current aides.

Last week, Trump’s primary defense attorney Evan Corcoran appeared before a federal grand jury, where he was expected to answer questions in Smith’s investigation into the handling of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, after Trump unsuccessfully fought to keep him from testifying.

A prosecutor in Georgia said at the end of January that there would be an investigation into his attempts to overturn Biden’s victory in the crucial swing state. CNN reported last week that prosecutors are considering racketeering charges.

Three crushing legal blows against Trump and his lawyers in investigations conducted by special counsel Jack Smith threaten to expose his conduct in the run up to the US Capitol insurrection and his excessive use of classified documents, which could bring new clarity to his conduct.

The ruling came days after another court decision against Trump and for the January 6 investigators, saying he could not block grand jury testimony from some of his administration’s top officials, including then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows.

“It is interesting to me that there is this scrum over the New York case, but I really do believe that in particular, the Mar-a-Lago case, the potential obstruction of justice case, puts (Trump) in the greatest jeopardy right now,” said former federal Judge John Jones III, who is now president of Dickinson College in Pennsylvania.

Not only is Trump apparently in severe jeopardy of becoming the first former president to be indicted, but his campaign to return to the White House in 2024 – while potentially being criminally charged – raises the possibility of an extraordinary political uproar. Trump is already making the situation worse, that would make for a more caustic political climate. At a campaign rally in Texas last weekend, the ex-president made up a story that the Biden administration wants to use the justice system against him so they can steal the election.

He could use the legal technicalities to argue that he stood up to the Justice Department, which is a useful weapon in a GOP presidential debate. The office of the vice president could have been expanded to clarify and establish new interpretations of the Speech or Debate Clause. The latter question would need to be considered definitive by the appeals court or Supreme Court when their consideration of Speech Clause cases is done.

The requirements of my testimony are under review, and I will give more information about that in the days to come.

The former vice president also said in his recently published book that he asked his general counsel for a briefing on the procedures of the Electoral Count Act after Trump, in a December 5, 2020, phone call, “mentioned challenging the election results in the House of Representatives for the first time.”