It’s not clear who might be named in the indictment or what charges would be included. Clerks at the Fulton County Superior Court said it could take hours for the court documents to be posted publicly.

The indictment comes after the grand jury heard a full day of testimony in the case after a more than two-year investigation by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis (D).

DEVELOPING...

Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said on a GOP conference call Monday evening that the House will likely have to pass a short-term solution known as a continuing resolution (CR), according to two sources on the call. 

McCarthy said he does not want the CR to be jammed at the end of the year or stretch into the December holidays, the sources added.

But a CR likely won't come easily.

Some members of the party's right flank have stressed they will only vote for bills that set funding at fiscal 2022 levels, and a CR would keep spending the same as in fiscal 2023.

Border issues and Ukraine funding could also add wrinkles to passing the stopgap solution.

Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) and 14 other Texas Republicans signed a letter last week pledging to vote against any bill that funds the Department of Homeland Security unless there are major changes to the U.S. border and migration policy. That would be more than enough opposition in a slim GOP majority to require Democratic votes to pass a continuing resolution.

And the White House last week unveiled a $40 billion supplemental funding request that includes $24 billion in military, financial and humanitarian assistance for Ukraine, which is already sparking opposition from Republicans who have become critical of funding for Kyiv.

“While the border remains wide open, crime in major cities is out of control, and Americans cannot afford daily necessities — Biden wants $24 billion MORE for Ukraine. Put America first,” Rep. Bob Good (R-Va.) wrote on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter.

One GOP member is pessimistic about government funding when lawmakers return to Washington in September.

“I just got off a member call - it’s clear President Biden and Speaker McCarthy want a government shutdown, so that’s what Congress will do after we return in September. Everyone should plan accordingly,” Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-Texas) said on X.

House lawmakers have just 12 days in session before the Sept. 30 funding deadline.

The House has passed just one of 12 appropriations bills thus far: It cleared legislation to fund military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs and related agencies just before breaking for the long August recess. But that same week, House GOP leadership scrapped its plan to vote on a bill to fund agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration as intraparty differences put the measure in jeopardy.

House Democrats have opposed the GOP funding bills because the party marked the appropriations bills up at levels lower than spending caps agreed to by McCarthy and President Biden in a debt limit deal earlier this year.

The Senate — which has not passed any of its 12 appropriations bills — marked up its legislation at levels in line with the debt limit deal struck by McCarthy and Biden, putting the two chambers on a collision course that could bring the government to the brink of a shutdown.

But lawmakers have an incentive to fully fund the government by Jan. 1, due to a provision in the debt limit bill to slash discretionary spending across the board by one percent if Congress has not completed the spending bills.

“Creating a secure location in Trump’s residence — which is also a social club — so he can discuss classified information would be an unnecessary and unjustified accommodation that deviates from the normal course of cases involving classified discovery,” the DOJ wrote in a brief Monday evening.

The battle comes over the sensitive compartmented information facility (SCIF) where Trump would need to meet with his legal team to discuss the evidence in the case, including 32 highly classified documents he is accused of mishandling at Mar-a-Lago.

Trump’s team last week did not list Mar-a-Lago by name but asked for “re-establishing the same secure area that existed during President Trump’s term as president,” arguing Trump’s movements to arrive at such a facility with security detail in tow would be too much of a burden for himself and law enforcement.

“In making this request for the creation of a secure location for his personal use, Trump continues to seek special treatment that no other criminal defendant would receive. In essence, he is asking to be the only defendant ever in a case involving classified information (at least to the Government’s knowledge) who would be able to discuss classified information in a private residence,” the DOJ wrote, calling Mar-a-Lago especially unsuitable as “a social club.”

The filing also dings Trump’s team for Trump's failure to provide any "specifics … about what steps (including cost or time) would be required to create a secure space at his proposed location.”

Trump initially requested to review evidence in the documents case at his Florida home, something prosecutors dismissed as “extraordinary” given that it is the very location where he is charged with improperly handling some of the nation’s most closely guarded secrets.

In requesting the redesignation of a SCIF, Trump’s team said it would allow the former president “to discuss the relevant classified information with his counsel without the need to mobilize his security detail and state and local law enforcement every time he has a conversation regarding his defense as it relates to purportedly classified information.”

DOJ on Monday also said Trump’s team had misinterpreted the parameters of the proposed protective order in the case, noting that the former president would communicate with his attorneys in any secure setting, regardless of whether the evidence is also housed there.

Exactly what facility would be available to Trump and his attorneys is a decision best made by the classified information security officer in the case, DOJ argues, the officer responsible for secure storage of classified materials involved in court proceedings.

Much of the filing is also devoted to a bid by Trump co-defendant Walt Nauta to have unfettered access to all the classified discovery in the case.

Unlike Trump, Nauta is not charged with violating the Espionage Act but rather assisting Trump in his efforts to shield the documents from authorities, prompting obstruction of justice charges.

“The classified discovery in this case goes well beyond the charged documents and includes documents so sensitive that Nauta would not have been permitted to view them even when he possessed a security clearance,” DOJ writes.

“Nauta is charged with obstruction and false statements offenses related to the investigation of Trump’s unlawful retention of classified documents, the resolution of which does not turn on the classification of the documents he is alleged to have helped Trump conceal.”

Updated at 7:22 p.m.

“The Fulton County District Attorney's Office has once again shown that they have no respect for the integrity of the grand jury process,” attorneys Drew Findling and Jennifer Little said in a statement issued by the Trump campaign.

“This was not a simple administrative mistake,” the attorneys added. “A proposed indictment should only be in the hands of the District Attorney's Office, yet it somehow made its way to the clerk's office and was assigned a case number and a judge before the grand jury even deliberated. This is emblematic of the pervasive and glaring constitutional violations which have plagued this case from its very inception.”

The statement is the latest instance of Trump and his allies questioning the credibility of the case against the former president.

Reuters reported earlier Monday on a legal filing against Trump posted to the court docket. But the news outlet later clarified that the court's website had briefly posted a document Monday listing several criminal charges against Trump “before taking the document down without explanation.”

A spokesperson for the Fulton County clerk issued a statement late Monday afternoon referencing a “fictitious document” circulating on social media, but they offered no further explanation about the document that was posted.

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis (D) is investigating Trump and his allies over their efforts to overturn the state’s election results in 2020 by pressuring state officials and putting together a group of alternate electors to go against the state’s certified results.

A grand jury met Monday and was expected to hear evidence in the case.

Two witnesses who were expected to appear before the grand jury Tuesday were spotted Monday, a sign that the process is moving more quickly than expected and an indictment could be imminent.

Trump spent much of Monday morning lashing out at Willis on social media over the Georgia investigation.

Biden was set to plead guilty to tax charges and settle a gun charge during a July 26 hearing in Delaware, but the judge in the case questioned the parameters of the deal and whether Biden fully understood what he was agreeing to.

Abbe Lowell, Biden’s attorney in the case, said Sunday that federal prosecutors “changed their decision on the fly” during the hearing — when such plea agreements are typically ironed out by both sides before appearing before a judge. Instead, the hearing took numerous twists and turns for nearly two hours until Biden ultimately pleaded not guilty in order to give both sides time to have another chance at coming up with a deal.

Lowell gave a trifecta of reasons for why the plea agreement ultimately wasn’t approved.

“And so the possibilities are only, one, they wrote something and weren't clear what they meant. Two, they knew what they meant, and misstated it to counsel. Or third, they changed their view as they were standing in court in Delaware,” Lowell said on CBS’s “Face the Nation."

In a court brief dated Sunday, he doubled down on those comments, maintaining that federal prosecutors opted to “renege on the previously agreed-upon Plea Agreement” and argued the diversion program to avoid jail time agreed to previously should remain in place.

The Justice Department declined to comment on the case or Lowell's accusations.

On Sunday, Lowell said he did not expect his client to face any additional charges, including possible violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act, which he said “had to” be part of federal prosecutors' five-year investigation. He noted that only tax charges and a diverted gun charge had resulted.

The tax charges stem from Biden’s foreign and domestic business dealings in which he failed to pay taxes on his earnings.

The collapse of such a high-profile plea deal involving the president’s son — being prosecuted by a Justice Department under his father’s own administration — has legal watchers scratching their heads over how attorneys on both sides could have entered a court room without coming to clear terms on the agreement that required a final seal of approval from the judge.

“It seems from the hearing transcript that there was not a meeting of the minds about what the deal was,” said Carissa Byrne Hessick, a law professor at the University of North Carolina and author of "Punishment Without Trial,” a book about plea bargains. 

The failed deal is the latest twist in an investigation that began during the Trump administration when the Justice Department began investigating Biden in 2018 on potential violations of tax and money laundering laws. After the Biden administration took over, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, who was appointed by President Biden, said he would keep in place the Trump-appointed U.S. attorney in Delaware overseeing Hunter Biden’s case.

Prosecutors reached a plea deal with Biden in June, under which the president’s son would have pleaded guilty to two tax offenses and entered a pretrial diversion program on a gun charge, allowing him to avoid a formal charge under specific conditions.  

At a hearing in Delaware last month where the deal was set to be formalized, U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika asked pointed questions about the complex agreement — in particular, questions regarding the scope of Biden’s immunity from any potential future charges. 

Without revealing details, prosecutors indicated that the president’s son remains under active investigation, according to The Associated Press. 

The deal crumbled in real time. 

“When [Noreika] asked additional questions about this … she got very different answers from defense and prosecution,” Hessick said. “At that point, the judge would be wrong to accept the plea agreement because the judge has a constitutional obligation under Supreme Court case law to make sure that a defendant's waiver of his or her right to a jury trial … is knowing, voluntary and intelligent. 

“It can't be knowing if there is a lack of clarity about what the agreement is,” she said. 

After the hearing, Noreika directed both parties to submit in writing their responses to her concerns, but on Friday, the Justice Department asked her to set those briefing deadlines aside. Prosecutors said plea deal negotiations with Biden’s team were at an “impasse.” 

Garland also on Friday appointed U.S. Attorney David Weiss — who was leading the investigation — as a special counsel, a title that grants more powers than those of U.S. attorneys. 

Thea Johnson, a law professor at Rutgers University who specializes in plea bargaining, said it’s typical for plea deals to mark the end of criminal investigations and that misunderstandings over such agreements are “unusual.”

“The defendant is saying, ‘I agree to plead guilty and to give everybody the certainty to end the case, and in exchange, the certainty I want is to know that the case is over — that the investigation is over,’” Johnson said. “So, it is quite unusual that there is a disagreement over the nature of the immunity deal.” 

“Certainly, it would make the typical defendant less likely to plead guilty if they thought that they were facing future criminal liability and they weren't sure what the nature of that liability would look like,” she added.

Still, it’s possible that DOJ prosecutors did go back on their deal — a move that’s entirely legal, Hessick said. 

She compared plea bargaining to buying a car from an independent seller, reaching a deal on the price, and then having the buyer putting more terms on the deal resulting in the seller charging more. 

"Colloquially, would you say that I reneged on a deal like that? Yeah,” Hessick said. “But from a legal standpoint, we didn't have a contract.” 

The stakes are much higher in criminal plea negotiations, Johnson said, using the same analogy. 

“Unlike a typical negotiation — where if we can't come to a resolution over the price of a car you don't buy the car — in a criminal case, if you can't come to a resolution then you go to trial,” Johnson said. 

Though prosecutors have indicated that a trial in Biden’s case is imminent, whether the parties will reach a deal before then is still yet to be seen. 

“It's certainly possible that it goes to trial,” Hessick said. “But in an awful lot of cases, somebody blinks just before the trial starts.” 

Updated 4:47 p.m.

Press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre was questioned by CNN’s Kayla Tausche on whether the American people should see the president working the phone rather than spending time on the beach during the crisis, after Biden spent the weekend in Rehoboth, Del., and returned to the White House on Monday morning.

“You all have gotten pool reports on who the president has connected with,” Jean-Pierre said, referring to the White House press pool reports and Biden's interactions with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

“The [FEMA] administrator has been there for two whole days, two whole days on the ground by the president's request to make sure that the government has what they have, the local government has what they have, the people of Maui have what they have,” she added. “When you talk about a dozen agencies on the ground, helping and assisting … hundreds of FEMA personnel. That's what — that's what matters.”

Biden on Sunday morning, during a bike ride in Rehoboth, replied, “We’re looking at it,” when asked about whether he would go to Maui. Later on Sunday, following a stop at the beach, he responded “no comment” when asked about the rising death toll in Maui.

Jean-Pierre was pressed again by Tausche about the White House response to critics who suggested that the president should not have been vacationing during the wildfire.

She responded that the president is “deeply concerned” to the point that he has mobilized a whole-of-government response. She pointed to the 300 FEMA personnel on the ground, 50,000 meals brought in and thousands of cots and blankets.

Jean-Pierre also said the American people can expect to hear from the president directly on Maui, not elaborating on the timing of such remarks.

“You could expect to hear from the president on this issue, clearly it is something that is deeply concerning to him,” she said. “You’ll hear from the president on this … certainly, he’s the president.”

FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell joined the briefing from Hawaii on Monday and, when asked about Biden visiting the devastation, she said that her focus is on not disrupting operations.

“Right now, we want to make sure that they have all of the resources and the space that they need and not disrupt operations,” she said, referring to the federal government responders.

“At this point, we just want to make sure that we are working to help this community identify everybody that’s missing, and we need to stay focused on that right now,” Criswell added.

Jean-Pierre highlighted Monday that Biden has signed a major disaster declaration, which allows all federal resources to help with the wildfire response. And, she said, the president has spoken to Criswell multiple times as well as Hawaii Sens. Mazie Hirono (D) and Brian Schatz (D).

Jean-Pierre also pointed numerous times to his comments Thursday, during which Biden spoke about the federal response to the wildfires as part of remarks on the one-year anniversary of the PACT Act.

Biden said he approved of a major disaster declaration for Hawaii, directed a surge in first responders and has kept in touch with Gov. Josh Green (D) and Criswell throughout the day.

The wildfire on the Hawaiian island is the deadliest in the U.S. in more than a century with at least 96 confirmed deaths, and search and rescue missions are still underway, suggesting that toll will likely rise.

Trump called for New York Supreme Court acting Justice Juan Merchan to step aside in June, citing Merchan’s daughter’s employment at a progressive digital agency and the judge’s participation in a previous case related to Trump’s business. 

Trump also demanded an explanation about an apparent political donation Merchan made to President Biden.

In a six-page decision, Merchan rejected all of Trump’s requests. The judge noted his decision was based in part on guidance he sought, prior to Trump’s motion, from the state’s judicial ethics advisory committee about some of the concerns.

Merchan is set to oversee Manhattan prosecutors’ attempt to convict Trump on 34 counts of falsifying business records in connection with payments he made to his then-fixer, Michael Cohen, after Cohen provided a $130,000 hush payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 election. 

Trump pleaded not guilty, and he has repeatedly attacked Merchan in speeches and on social media. Merchan has set a trial start date for March 2024.

Merchan’s ruling did confirm his daughter is employed at Authentic Campaigns, a digital marketing agency that lists Biden’s campaign and other Democratic candidates as clients, as Trump’s attorneys alleged in the recusal motion.

But the judge cited the ethics committee’s guidance, which found nothing to “suggest that the outcome of the case could have any effect on the judge's relative, the relative's business, or any of their interests."

“Defendant has failed to demonstrate that there exists concrete, or even realistic reasons for recusal to be appropriate, much less required on these grounds,” Merchan wrote. “The speculative and hypothetical scenarios offered by Defendant fall well short of the legal standard.”

Merchan’s decision went on to seemingly confirm that he donated $35 to political causes in July 2020, comprising a $15 donation to Biden’s presidential campaign, $10 to the Progressive Turnout Project and $10 to a group called “Stop Republicans.”

But he similarly cited the ethics committee’s guidance saying he was not obligated to disclose the contributions.

“The donations at issue are self-evident and require no further clarification,” Merchan wrote.

Merchan also rejected notions that he acted improperly while overseeing the criminal prosecution of Allen Weisselberg, the Trump Organization’s former chief financial officer who agreed to a plea deal last year. 

Merchan said the Trump Organization had unsuccessfully sought his recusal in that case, too.

“That the identical grounds are now raised on behalf of a different defendant, on an entirely different indictment, only serve to weaken the plausibility of the claim,” Merchan wrote.

Trump has also mounted an attempt to move his case to federal court, but a separate judge rejected that effort last month. Trump is now appealing that decision, and the case is meanwhile moving ahead in Merchan’s court.

Beyond the hush money charges, the former president also faces criminal charges in connection with his alleged mishandling of classified materials and efforts to remain in power following the 2020 election. Trump has pleaded not guilty in all of the cases.

But Democrats argue that the interview actually discredits GOP claims of improper political influence in the investigation.

The closed-door interview with the now-retired FBI special supervisory agent, who oversaw the investigation into Hunter Biden conducted in conjunction with the IRS, was conducted in July and has prompted sparring between the two parties in the weeks since. The agent’s name is redacted in the transcript.

Republican interest in the FBI agent’s testimony centers on how they say it substantiates a piece of testimony from one of the IRS whistleblowers who raised alarm about how the tax crimes investigation into Hunter Biden was conducted, specifically about how a planned attempt to interview Hunter Biden at his home in California Dec. 8, 2020, unfolded.

That whistleblower, IRS Supervisory Agent Gary Shapley, and the FBI agent said their plan was to show up at Hunter Biden's home for a possible interview and “hail mary” consent search. They planned to notify the local Secret Service office in Los Angeles at 8 a.m. the day of their planned attempt, since Hunter Biden was a Secret Service protectee.

“The initial plan was to have the local field office of the Secret Service be notified the morning of to diminish opportunities for anybody else to be notified,” the FBI agent said in the interview.

But the FBI agent said he was notified the evening before, Dec. 7, 2020, that FBI headquarters had contacted the Secret Service headquarters — which upset both the FBI agent and Shapley from the IRS.

“I felt it was people that did not need to know about our intent,” the FBI agent said. “I believe that the Secret Service had to be notified for our safety, for lack of confusion, for deconfliction, which we would do in so many other cases, but I didn't understand why the initial notification.”

Shapley had told the House Ways and Means Committee in May that the “transition team” was also notified about the plan. The FBI agent said he did not recall that until he had heard it from Shapley, but he remembered “that’s why I was upset that evening, that somebody beyond Secret Service was notified.” The agent could not provide any other information about who in the transition team was notified. 

On the day of Dec. 8, the plan changed, the agent said. He was told his information would be given to the Secret Service, but that he was to stay away from Hunter Biden's home while he awaited further contact, which he said he had never been instructed to do before.

They were never able to interview Hunter Biden.

During Democratic questioning, however, the FBI agent said he had never interviewed a Secret Service protectee as part of a criminal matter and acknowledged that FBI policy means that politically sensitive investigations require “greater approvals” from up the chain of command.

The agent also told the committee he couldn't say whether the change in plans was driven by political considerations, but understood that FBI headquarters and Secret Service headquarters could want to “foster an ongoing good working relationship, so that one was not blindsided by the other.”

The agent also indicated that it was unlikely that Hunter Biden would have agreed to speak to him even if he had been allowed to try to knock on his door.

“In my experience, an attorney would be less likely to agree to succumb to an interview,” the FBI agent said.

Republicans are using the interview to boost their claims of mismanagement of the investigation into Hunter Biden, which Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) has said could evolve into an impeachment inquiry into President Biden.

“IRS whistleblower Gary Shapley’s testimony that Secret Service headquarters and the Biden transition team were tipped off is confirmed by a former FBI agent,” House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) said in a statement Monday alongside the transcript's release.

“Tipping off the transition team and not being able to interview Hunter Biden as planned are just a couple of examples that reveal the Justice Department’s misconduct in the Biden criminal investigation that occurred under U.S. Attorney Weiss’ watch,” Comer added.

Weiss was appointed as a special counsel in the ongoing investigation of Hunter Biden last week, a move that Republicans have criticized given their disapproval with how he handled previous aspects of the case as outlined by the IRS whistleblowers. 

But Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the top Democrat on the Oversight committee, said in a statement that the “transcript once again confirms that David Weiss, a Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney, hand-picked by then-Attorney General William Barr, has for years been investigating the President’s son without any political interference from the Administration.”

Raskin had for weeks called on Comer to publicly release the FBI agent transcript. Republicans said that the transcript was going through a normal review process and that they planned to eventually release it, as Comer said he wanted to do.

“The Chairman’s release, obviously timed to distract from news of an imminent potential fourth criminal indictment of Donald Trump, features the same selective and distorted parsing of information we have come to expect in service of the Republicans’ fruitless investigation into President Biden, which has failed to turn up a single shred of evidence of wrongdoing,” Raskin said in his statement.

Updated at 5:12 p.m.

Trump posted multiple times on Truth Social early Monday, with each message lashing out in some way about Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and her investigation. The barrage of posts, most written in all capital letters, comes as charges could be filed as early as this week.

Trump bashed Willis as “phoney” in one post and wrote that she “wants desperately to indict me on the ridiculous grounds of tampering with the 2020 presidential election.”

“No, I didn’t tamper with the election!” he wrote in all capital letters.

“Would someone please tell the Fulton County grand jury that I did not tamper with the election,” the former president wrote in a subsequent all-caps post. 

“The people that tampered with it were the ones that rigged it, and sadly, phoney Fani Willis, who has shockingly allowed Atlanta to become one of the most dangerous cities anywhere in the world, has no interest in seeing the massive amount of evidence available, or finding out who these people that committed this crime are,” he added.

There is no evidence that the Georgia 2020 election was rigged. The vote was recounted and certified by state officials, and various allegations of fraud were either debunked by state and local officials or dismissed in court.

Trump in a phone call after the 2020 election asked Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to find the number of votes necessary to put him ahead of President Biden in the state.

In another post, Trump responded to reports that former Georgia Lt. Gov. Jeff Duncan (R) is expected to testify before the Fulton County grand jury this week.

“He shouldn’t. I barely know him but he was, right from the beginning of this Witch Hunt, a nasty disaster for those looking into the Election Fraud that took place in Georgia,” Trump wrote. “He refused having a Special Session to find out what went on, became very unpopular with Republicans (I refused to endorse him!), and fought the TRUTH all the way. A loser, he went to FNCNN!”

Duncan served as lieutenant governor for one term and opted not to run for reelection in 2022. He has since joined CNN as a political commentator and has been outspoken in pushing back on Trump’s claims of election fraud in the state.

Trump’s targeting of a potential witness in the Georgia case comes as a judge in Washington, D.C., specifically warned the former president against intimidating or influencing witnesses in a separate case, where Trump faces federal charges over attempting to subvert the 2020 election results.

The Georgia-focused posts came hours after Trump shortly after midnight blasted special counsel Jack Smith, who is overseeing two federal probes of the former president, and Tanya Chutkan, the judge in the D.C. case.

Trump’s burst of posts on social media comes as Willis is expected to present her case to a grand jury Monday and Tuesday against Trump and his allies.

Two witnesses over the weekend said they have been asked to appear before the grand jury Tuesday, including Duncan.

CNN reported last week that Willis is expected to seek more than a dozen indictments in the case, with an eye on conspiracy and racketeering charges. The investigation has focused on efforts to pressure election officials and a scheme to put forward an alternative slate of electors who would go against the outcome of the vote in the state.

“I am reading reports that failed former Lt. Governor of Georgia, Jeff Duncan, will be testifying before the Fulton County Grand Jury. He shouldn’t,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

Duncan confirmed Saturday that he had been requested to testify before a Fulton County grand jury Tuesday, indicating charges in District Attorney Fani Willis’s (D) 2020 election investigation are imminent.

Duncan, a Trump critic, is one of multiple witnesses expected to testify behind closed doors early this week before grand jurors vote on indictments in the case.

“I barely know him but he was, right from the beginning of this Witch Hunt, a nasty disaster for those looking into the Election Fraud that took place in Georgia,” Trump wrote. “He refused having a Special Session to find out what went on, became very unpopular with Republicans (I refused to endorse him!), and fought the TRUTH all the way. A loser, he went to FNCNN!”

Independent journalist George Chidi also indicated that he had been asked to testify before the grand jury Tuesday.

Any charges brought against Trump would mark the fourth indictment facing the former president as he attempts to campaign to return to the White House. Willis has been probing an infamous Jan. 2, 2021, call between Trump and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) and other efforts to overturn the 2020 election results.

Trump has been warned in his other criminal cases against intimidating witnesses or making inflammatory statements, but has repeatedly attacked judges, prosecutors and juries taking part in the probes.

“No, I didn’t tamper with the election! Those who rigged & stole the election were the ones doing the tampering, & they are the slime that should be prosecuted,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post earlier Monday.

“Would someone please tell the Fulton County grand jury that I did not tamper with the election,” he said in another post.