Trump Lawyer Joe Tacopina Previously Suggested Hush-Money Payments Made To Stormy Daniels May Have Been Illegal

In the 2018 CNN clip, which resurfaced on Tuesday, Tacopina tells anchor Don Lemon that “if in fact” the payments were made in connection to Trump’s 2016 campaign “it’s an illegal agreement. It’s a fraud.”

Tacopina was speaking about federal prosecutors’ 2018 case against former Trump lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen, in which Cohen pleaded guilty to five charges, including campaign finance violations, for paying adult film star Stormy Daniels $130,000 in exchange for her silence about her alleged 2006 affair with Trump.

Tacopina suggested in the 2018 interview that prosecutors had reason to be suspicious about the payments to Daniels, which Cohen admitted came from a home equity line of credit, telling Lemon, “Cohen again has made statements that would give rise to suspicion for any prosecutor to say ‘that doesn’t make sense.’”

Tacopina defended his statements as “hypothetical” on Tuesday, telling Forbes “there could be problems for Trump . . . if he paid it with campaign funds,” adding that the payments were not tied to Trump’s campaign finances or made with campaign funds.

Tacopina also faces allegations of a potential conflict of interest in Trump’s case after a separate March 2018 CNN interview was unearthed last week in which Lemon asked Tacopina about his impression of Daniels after she approached him about representing her.

In that interview, Tacopina said he could not discuss his “impressions or any conversations” surrounding Daniels “because there is an attorney-client privilege that attaches even to a consultation.”

Tacopina’s link to Daniels drew criticism last week when NYU Professor Ryan Goodman pointed out in a series of tweets that the New York and American Bar Associations’ rules of professional conduct prohibit lawyers from representing clients in cases that could have an adverse impact on a former prospective client “if the lawyer received information from the prospective client that could be significantly harmful,” according to the ABA standards.

Tacopina said Tuesday there is “zero conflict,” telling Forbes: “I never met this lady. I never spoke with this lady. I never read a document. She called my office asking one of my associates if I would be interested in representing her in this case . . . I quickly said no” (Tacopina previously told Law & Crime one of Daniels’ representatives called his office on her behalf).