Posted on 06/19/2023 10:13:33 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Monday night brought us the first part of the Fox News interview between Bret Baier and former and potentially future President Donald Trump, where the leading candidate in the Republican presidential primary discussed the most recent indictment against him in his first interview since last week's arraignment. As it turns out, though, Trump may have discussed a bit too much, and just by the very nature of giving the interview.
In a part of the interview getting significant attention, Trump discussed with Baier the nature of the documents. In addition to seeking to turn the conversation to President Joe Biden's handling of classified documents, Trump discussed how he has been "been very, very busy" and was not ready to hand over the boxes yet.
TRUMP: “The only way NARA could ever get this stuff, this back, would be ‘please, please, please, could we have it back?" [...]
BAIER: "Why not just hand them over then?"
TRUMP: "Because I had boxes, I want to go through the boxes and get all my personal things out. I don’t… pic.twitter.com/fTv615vD8N— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) June 19, 2023
Over at our sister site of HotAir, Managing Editor Ed Morrisey lays out quite the concerns about what this means for Trump's defense, with original emphasis:
The first rule of Federal Indictment Club is: you don’t talk about your case. And the second rule of Federal Indictment Club is: you don’t talk about your case, period. You hire a good lawyer or two and let them talk about your case in public. The surest way to help the prosecution is to go on television and make a damaging admission about the key element of a charge.
You think Jack Smith and his attorneys are busy transcribing the whole interview at the moment? You’d better believe they are, and for good reason. Trump just made it almost impossible for a jury to believe any denial on these allegations, and his justification here would be damning in court. By talking publicly, Trump likely ruined a potential defense strategy for his attorneys, and now they will have to work around Trump’s public statement on national TV when this case comes to trial.
Bear in mind too that criminal defendants don’t have to testify in court. Trump could have refused to expose himself to cross-examination at trial and make Smith and his team prove obstruction on their own beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead, Trump put himself on national TV and let Bret Baier cross-examine him, in a way that prosecutors can use whether Trump agrees to testify or not. And Trump botched the exchange and ended up making a potentially fatal admission, not because of a skilled attorney, but because a journalist simply read the elements of the indictment to him.
Now Smith and his team can play this to a jury, and Trump can’t stop it. Public admissions are admissible in court whether or not defendants choose to testify, and probably carry even more weight when they’re on videotape. (Even private admissions are admissible if direct witnesses to the admission are willing to testify to them.) Trump will almost certainly have to testify now to explain this away — and everyone can imagine how Trump will hold up under prosecutorial cross-examination.
Law professor Jonathan Turley chimed in over Twitter about the interview, including as it pertains to what his legal defense now will be.
...Trump was saying that the boxes contained "golf shirts, clothing, pants, shoes..." Baier interjected "Iranian war plans" and Trump objected "not that I know of." So he is denying what he stated on the audiotape. ...— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) June 19, 2023
....Even if this was not going to be the defense of Trump's team, it now is. Trump is arguing that there never was a document and that he was referencing coverage on the Iran attack.— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) June 19, 2023
Fox News analyst Brit Hume, The Hill highlighted, expressed concern that Trump's "answers on the matter of the law seem to verge on incoherent." He also noted that Trump "seemed to be saying the documents were really his and he didn’t give them back when he was requested to do so, and when they were subpoenaed because he wasn’t ready to because he hadn’t sorted them or whatever from his golf shirts."
Hume appeared to have chosen his words carefully when it says he "seemed," to be saying as much, since the analyst also added "it was not altogether clear what he was saying, but he seemed to believe that the documents were his, that he had declassified them and therefore he could do whatever he wanted with them."
For all of the concerns, Trump did emphasize to Baier that he has "zero" worries about the case. When asked by Baier "you are not worried about this case," Trump offered "based on the law? Zero. Zero." He pointed to the Presidential Records Act as his defense, a defense he's used before, to some pushback though, as Baier brought up.
In response to Baier bringing up how others "push back," Trump pointed to a narrative that does have weight to it, with regards to "a weaponization of politics," and "a weaponization of the White House," which Trump called "a horrible thing," as he emphasized how he is leading in the polls. "A candidate that’s leading. I’m leading Biden by a lot. They go out and they weaponize. There is a horrible thing that was done."
To Trump's point about being targeted as a leading candidate, a poll conducted last week by Harvard CAPS/Harris found that 55 percent of respondents believe the Trump indictment is "politically motivated," and 56 percent believe the indictment is "interference by the Department of Justice in the 2024 elections."
Trump is not only indeed leading in the polls for the Republican primary, according to RealClearPolitics (RCP), but he also currently has a lead of +2.4 against Biden.
"Bret Baier" has been trending on Twitter in response to the interview. Baier posted a preview of the second part of the interview, which will air the following night.
A preview of my 2 part interview with former President Trump. #foxnews pic.twitter.com/Fa3M0skA9p— Bret Baier (@BretBaier) June 19, 2023
He’s right under the law, but they only need to find him guilty on any one of the counts to make it a life sentence for a 78 year old man.
That’d be a false verdict.
I agree that the case is bs, but that’s where we are. Rightly or wrongly, they only need one conviction of the 38 charges.
Ed Morrissey and his crew of like minded never-trumper dupes are so stupid that it doesn’t even occur to them this kind of ‘trumped up’ lawfare can be slammed against whoever the deep state likes.
Everyone is a criminal under the law, deserving of decades of jail, then the puppetmasters can push selective persecution while their buddies aren’t even challenged verbally.
And useful idiots like Ed Morrissey will cheer the whole way
Consider that the best NYS could do is a phony verdict with respect to E. Jean Carroll, which is being challenged.
Trump should just stick on the point he’s being selectively targeted, and not mention any of the details like he supposedly withheld some of the boxes back because they had some old clothes in them, etc. Does he really think that is helping, he’s said it several times now.
Trump just can’t help himself. Apparently no attorney to tell him to STFU.
“Samuel Richard “Sandy” Berger (October 28, 1945 – December 2, 2015) was an attorney who served as the 18th US National Security Advisor for US President Bill Clinton from 1997 to 2001 after he had served as the Deputy National Security Advisor for the Clinton administration from 1993 to 1997.
“On July 19, 2004, it was revealed that the United States Department of Justice was investigating Berger for unauthorized removal of classified documents in October 2003 from a National Archives reading room prior to testifying before the 9/11 Commission. The documents were five classified copies of a single report commissioned from Richard Clarke covering internal assessments of the Clinton Administration’s handling of the unsuccessful 2000 millennium attack plots. An associate of Berger said Berger took one copy in September 2003 and four copies in October 2003, allegedly by stuffing the documents into his socks and pants. Berger subsequently lied to investigators when questioned about the removal of the documents.
“In April 2005, Berger pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material from the National Archives in Washington, D.C.
“Berger was fined $50,000, sentenced to serve two years of probation and 100 hours of community service, and stripped of his security clearance for three years. The Justice Department initially said Berger only stole copies of classified documents and not originals, but the House Government Reform Committee later revealed that an unsupervised Berger had been given access to classified files of original, uncopied, uninventoried documents on terrorism.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Berger
Shutting up won’t stop the left. Why even suggest that it would?
And that will stop the left how?
Ҥ 2203. Management and custody of Presidential records
(a) Through the implementation of records management controls and other necessary actions, the President shall take all such steps as may be necessary to assure that the activities, deliberations, decisions, and policies that reflect the performance of the President’s constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties are adequately documented and that such records are preserved and maintained as Presidential records pursuant to the requirements of this section and other provisions of law”
https://www.archives.gov/about/laws/presidential-records.html#2203
No, it won’t stop the left but it will slow down Trump’s mouth. He should not have been talking about this. Where’s his attorney?!
Trump, stop the left? Since when? I’m just suggesting he finally quit giving them more ammo.
This is all to keep him busy. Even if he can manage to avoid prison, they will still keep him involved in one legal manner or another.
Formerly restricted sounds to the uninitiated less serious but it is actually a technical term denoting something very serious that has gone out the door as previously restricted, in this case, falling under the Atomic Energy Act (secrets held by D.O.E) which can NOT be easily/arbitrarily declassified by a mere wink and a nod, or just thinking it, nobody, including POTUS. If somebody told Trump he could do this (and he believed them) he was very ill-served.
Sandy Berger should have been drawn and quartered, the little traitorous shit.
“on the way to acquiring weapons, there are all sorts of thresholds that we would like to prevent. And one of them was portrayed by Mr. Netanyahu in the U.N. about a decade ago, where he drew a line of Iran acquiring one bomb’s worth of 20% enriched material [which would represent 90% of the process of making bomb-grade material]. And by the way, the Iranians respected that, and did not cross that line until 2021. I think it should be understood by everybody that for Israel, this is a threat of existential dimension, a strategic threat. Israel is determined to prevent Iran from acquiring the capability to become a nuclear-armed state.”
“When it comes to the fissile material, as the U.S. administration has indicated, and we agree, the timeline is such that Iran within weeks could acquire one bomb’s worth of military grade fissile material.”
Mossad Director David Barnea:
“In a speech at the International Institute for Counter Terrorism on Sept. 12, 2022: ‘The Iranian leadership must understand that attacks against Israel or Israelis, directly or indirectly by proxies, will be met with a painful response against those responsible, on Iranian soil… The deal [2015 nuclear deal] is based on Iranian lies. Iran has sought to build a nuclear weapon that endangers Israel’s existence. The deal will easily help them reach this goal under international legitimization.’”
IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Aviv Kohavi:
“The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action [JCPOA – the 2015 Iran nuclear deal] was signed with Iran when it already had enough nuclear material for seven potential nuclear bombs: six bombs from low-level enriched uranium and another one from 20% enriched uranium.
“The situation today [is focused on] four potential bombs, even less. It is true that one of them is based on 60% enriched uranium; the distance between 60% and 20% is only a few weeks, so it does not really matter. What is important is not to allow Iran to obtain a nuclear bomb, but also not to get to the point where it can rapidly break out into a nuclear bomb within weeks.
“That was, in my view, the biggest problem with the JCPOA. I thought it was a bad deal at the time, and I did not hide my view. Our responsibility in the IDF is to be ready to strike a substantial blow against the nuclear facilities and also against second-level military targets, and to be ready for a broader conflict with Iran.
“This is what we did in recent years. One, we upgraded our intelligence to greatly increase the number of targets. Second, we increased the number of munitions and systems needed to attack Iran, with the process now at a peak. Third, we built operational plans. Fourth, and most important, we are training for this. We finished two drills. One was during the IDF’s War Month, and the second was at the end of November. We are about to hold a third very large exercise.
“In under a year, we are going to have carried out three training exercises with dozens of aircraft, refueling aircraft and all of the operative units. In addition, we also established an Iran Department in the IDF, led by a major general. All of this speaks for itself regarding the level of preparation that we are achieving.”
National Security Advisor Tzachi Hanegbi:
“The central mission of the prime minister and his primary obligation is to ensure that Iran does not obtain nuclear weapons. The alternative to an attack is accepting a reality in which a radical regime has nuclear weapons. No Israeli leader can accept that.”
Defense Minister Yoav Gallant:
“One thing have to be made clear, loud and clear: Israel will not allow Iran to possess weapons of mass destructions, nuclear weapons aiming Israel.”
Defense Minister Benny Gantz:
“Israel has significantly increased its preparedness in recent years and is preparing for the possibility of an attack on Iran… You may cross the sky to the east in two or three years and take part in an attack on nuclear sites in Iran, for which we are preparing.”
https://iranprimer.usip.org/blog/2023/jan/25/israel-iran-threat-options
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.