Former President Donald Trump, for whatever frustrating reason, decided to do interviews with the New York Times’ Maggie Haberman. Why did he do so? Who knows. Probably his ego, or respect for institutions that have faded. But, whatever the reason, it’s what he did and she wrote a book about him that, predictably, attempts to make him look as bad as possible.
One part of the unflattering book is particularly relevant: Haberman claims that Trump told her that he had taken sensitive documents from the White House, which is what turned into the controversy that sparked the Stasi-like FBI raid on his Mar-a-Lago home.
Predictably, the left got giddy with glee over that claim, with an MSNBC legal panel led by Lawrence O’Donnell going particularly wild imagining using the “evidence” Haberman claims to have to put Trump in jail.
O’Donnell, speaking on that, said:
“I was struck by the Maggie Haberman quotes of a year ago from Witness Trump. Now, if there is an audio tape of that, and I, not sure if Donald Trump allows her to tape their conversations, but if there is, that is something that could be subpoenaed in this case, it appears that Donald Trump realizes in mid-answer, by her surprise, that he’s not supposed to have these. But we know that he did have those at that time.”
That’s probably incorrect: “supposed to” is a grey area, as the president can declassify what he wants and Trump presumably declassified the documents he took home with him.
Regardless, another MSNBC legal analyst, Neal Katyal, agreed, saying:
“A crime requires two things. It requires a bad act and a bad criminal intent. And what Maggie Haberman’s reporting is suggesting is that there was a bad criminal intent as early as a year ago, in September of last year, that he knew about these documents and the like.”
And that wasn’t even the end of it. Ratcheting up the glee to yet another level was Glenn Kirschner, a former federal prosecutor, who said:
You know, I see Donald Trump making admission after admission, all of which are statements by a party opponent, which is not hearsay. We introduced those kind of statements in criminal prosecutions all the time. And I will tell you, Lawrence, as an old career prosecutor, a trial guy, I see all of Donald Trump’s admissions, like the ones to Maggie Haberman, as evidentiary gold.
And I keep waiting to see when some prosecutor will be able to plant her feet in the well of a courtroom and argue to 12 people in the jury box sitting as the conscience of the community and begin presenting this evidence. But there is a prerequisite to us getting to that point. It’s an indictment. And as Neil said, if he had, if I had top secret documents, I handled an espionage case as an Army JAG with a TSSCIC clearance, and I was scared to death. I was going to say or do something that might inadvertently run afoul of the rules by which I had to abide. You know, we would be in jail lickety split. So I await the Department of Justice to get to a point where it believes the time is right, because this is only a timing issue. The evidence is there.
Of course, Trump could have avoided this nonsense if he had just avoided talking to some woke reporter. But, as with other cases in the past, he just couldn’t do it, which is frustrating. But at least he still fights, unlike the craven RINOs that speak to the Haberman types without fighting.