Trump Reveals Motive For Stealing 40+ Boxes Of Classified Documents During Hannity Interview; Moron's Confession Destroys Any Potential Defense He Might Have Asserted
Trump steps on yet another rake as he unknowingly gift-wraps some key evidence for Special Counsel Jack Smith: why he stole hundreds of classified documents from the White House.
When Special Counsel Jack Smith’s federal investigation into Donald Trump’s crimes of stealing classified and top secret documents from the White House and defying subpoeans to return all of them to the National Archives, and lying to federal agents about whether all documents had been returned, and telling his lawyers to lie to federal agents on his behalf, etc., etc., one of the most fruitful sources of information against Donald Trump will likely turn out to be Donald Trump’s big mouth.
I’ve lost track of how many different crimes Trump — through his deranged social media posts and often-incoherent interviews with far-right media — has either (1) confessed to, (2) provided coorborating evidence of, or (3) offered an explanation of how the crime was committed. It’s unreal.
The Sean Hannity interview of Trump (nearly an hour) aired on March 27, 2023. It was such a dumpster fire that Rep. Jason Chaffetz (Utah) went on TV to call it “absolutely horrific”:
I voted for Donald Trump twice. I have defended him countless times. I thought he was horrific. I think that was the worst interview I’ve seen the president do. He was whining. He was complaining. He played the victim card. Time and time again. And then after that, he complained that, you know, somebody he had endorsed was now running against him.
Aaron Blake’s March 28 column in the Washington Post was headlined: “Sean Hannity’s Attempt To Coach Trump Backfires — Again”:
Donald Trump’s long-awaited return to Fox News’s airwaves on Monday night after a months-long absence occasioned an altogether familiar exercise: His longtime ally Sean Hannity helpfully tries to coach him to give the right answers, and Trump utterly fails to oblige. A telling exchange results, but not in the way the host intends.
On Monday, Brian Tyler Cohen (host of “The Legal Breakdown”) spoke with MSNBC Legal Correspondent and former federal prosecutor Glenn Kirscher (host of “Justice Matters”) about how Trump sabotaged any possible defense he might have asserted in the stolen classified docuemnts case. (bold: my emphasis)
Brian Tyler Cohen: Glenn, a pretty shocking revelation from Trump himself. He appeared on Hannity’s show and while Hannity was desperately trying to get him to say that he didn’t personally rummage through boxes of classified documents that had been stolen from the White House, Trump wouldn’t take the bait. Here’s a quick clip.
Sean Hannity: [I’ve known you for decades. I can’t imagine you ever saying] “Bring me some of the boxes that we brought back from the White House. I’d like to look at them.” Did you ever do that?
Donald Trump: I would have the right to do that. There’s nothing wrong with it.
Hannity: But I know you, I don’t think you would do it.
Trump: Well, I don’t have a lot of time, but I would have the right to do that. I would do that. There’s be nothing wrong —
Hannity (knows Trump is screwing himself, tries to switch topics): All right, let me move on.
Trump: Remember this.
Hannity (weary, quiet, admitting-defeat-to-himself voice): Yeah.
Trump: This is the Presidential Records Act. I have the right to take stuff. Do you know that they ended up paying Richard Nixon, I think $18 million for what he had. They did the Presidential Records Act. I have the right to take stuff. I have the right to look at stuff.
Cohen: So, Glenn, how bad is this admission from Trump?
Glenn Kirschner: It is staggering. You know, Hannity tried to give him the out — and he refused to take it. So what Donald Trump has succeeded in doing is strengthening the obstruction of justice case that is being investigated by special counsel Jack Smith and strengthening it to the point where — you know, the proof-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt is there for the taking. And then what was even more surprising is, after Donald Trump virtually admitted that he had his grubby little hands on the documents after those documents had been subpoenaed by the grand jury as part of a criminal investigation, he goes on to helpfully supply evidence of motive of his crime. He says, well, you know, Richard Nixon had documents and they paid him $18 million for those documents. And, you know, in the event there was any question about why Donald Trump had committed these crimes concerning these classified documents, boy, he just answered that question. It was for financial gain. So, you know, this case is virtually ready to be indicted right now.
Cohen: So on this issue of evidence of motive, before Donald Trump did this, before he came out with this Hannity interview and basically admitted as much, would there have been evidence of motive or did he just voluntarly hand the prosecution its biggest weapon in this case?
Kirschner: He handed the prosecutors a gift. Motive is something that juries always want to know. What is it that motivated the defendant to commit the crimes. But, importantly, motive is not an element of proof. We don’t have to prove why somebody committed a crime, we only have to prove that they did commit the crime. But when you have good evidence, compelling evidence of motive, frankly, it makes all of the other evidence a little bit more palatable to the jury. Because it helps explain why the defendant did what he did. It makes it a little easier for juries to vote guilty, to hold somebody accountable. And up until Donald Trump virtually announced that my motive regarding the documents crimes was money, I think we would have been left to speculate — maybe he was going to try to sell documents, maybe he was going to try and leverage them for some business advantage, you know, perhaps overseas, but now we know it is just sort of this base desire that Donald Trump has, to take documents that don’t belong to him, and sell them back to the government. Richard Nixon did it, in his world view, for $18 million, so why shouldn’t I do it as well?
Cohen: Yeah. It's always amazing how a self-proclaimed billionaire keeps finding creative new ways to try to bilk taxpayers and his own supporters for more money.
[Note: Trump completely misunderstands the Nixon documents settlement. I know, big surprise. For one thing, the case was settled six years after Nixon’s death, so Nixon’s payout was exactly $0.00.]
Aaron Blake (WaPo):
Whether Trump deliberately took classified documents and knew he possessed them is a significant question that looms over the special counsel’s investigation. That’s because it’s a crime both to intentionally remove them from where they are supposed to be and withhold them when the government requests them. There is evidence that he was aware of what he had, but here Trump acknowledges that reviewing documents he took from the White House was something he “would” do — even as he doesn’t explicitly acknowledge that he did. . . .
The other big pertinent legal question is whether Trump obstructed the effort to recover those documents.
This is where the August Mar-a-Lago search comes into play. Hannity tried to suggest that Trump was forthcoming and transparent with the authorities in allowing them to conduct a search before they did so without his permission in August — the implication being that the unscheduled August search was unnecessary. But again, Trump wasn’t on the same page.
“Did you ever deny the FBI any access that they requested to come back to that room or any other room?” Hannity asked, in the first of four attempts to get Trump to say he never denied access.
Rather than say that, Trump merely suggested that such access was not requested.
“The FBI could have taken the documents if they would have asked,” he said.
He added, at another point: “We would have given them the stuff had they asked for it.”
When Hannity asked a third time, Trump said that “the lawyers gave them access to the room” where the documents were stored. But he again didn’t address the idea that a request to actually search for the documents was denied.
Hannity kept pushing for a direct answer: “The question that was key to me is, like, they already had access, and I was asking you if you ever denied them access?”
Trump again talked around the question, saying he didn’t know why they conducted the surprise search and that “I would have said yes” to a pre-Mar-a-Lago-search request.
The fact that Trump wouldn’t say whether a request was denied could be significant, because the government has flatly said it was indeed prevented from looking through the documents.
Trump’s legal team had said in an August filing that he had told the agents during a June visit: “Whatever you need, just let us know.” It also said an agent had asked to “inspect” the room and that the request was granted. But it didn’t address whether agents were allowed to actually look at the documents in the room or conducted such an inspection.
The government soon indicated that the omission was deliberate. It said that agents were “allowed only a brief view of the storage room” and weren’t allowed to view the contents of the boxes.
“Critically … the former President’s counsel explicitly prohibited government personnel from opening or looking inside any of the boxes that remained in the storage room, giving no opportunity for the government to confirm that no documents with classification markings remained,” the Justice Department said in another filing.
Video and security camera footage exists of the entire search, but Trump — who watched the FBI search with members of his family via a live video link — continues to lie about what happened.
As long as Trump keeps talking, he’ll confess to even more crimes — he apparently can’t help it; he has zero self-restraint when it comes to speaking and he’s far too stupid to know he’s incriminating himself and his words will be used against him in court — and give his prosecutors even more pieces of key evidence they wouldn’t otherwise uncover.
Before Boring The Mar-A-Lago Crowd With His Endless Whining And Self-Pity, Trump Played A Cross-Dressing Anthem About Androgynous "Hot Tramps" On Quaaludes
You’ve got your mother in a whirl
She’s not sure if you’re a boy or a girl . . .
Rebel rebel, you’ve torn your dress
Rebel rebel, your face is a mess
Rebel rebel, how could they know?
Hot tramp, I love you so! . . .
You’ve got your transmission and your live wire
You got your cue line and a handful of 'ludes
You wanna be there when they count up the dudes
And I love your dress . . .
That’s an interesting choice of music for a group of hateful bigots whose main job seems to be inciting violence and hatred against drag performers, portraying them as the most evil people who ever walked the earth (while also punching down against other marginalized people). Yet Dolt45 wears more makeup and surreal colours slathered on his face every day than most drag performers.
Here is a partial list of musicians who have spoken out against the playing of their songs at Trump events: The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Neil Young, Bruce Springsteen, Prince, Tom Petty, R.E.M., Queen, The White Stripes, Creedence Clearwater Revival, Aerosmith, Elton John, Guns N’ Roses, Ozzy Osbourne, Everlast, The Village People, Rihanna, Leonard Cohen, Twisted Sister, Isaac Hayes, Nickelback, Adele, Phil Collins, Panic! at the Disco, Pharrell Williams, Eddy Grant, Linkin Park, and Luciano Pavarotti. . . . Bowie’s estate might want to get on the horn.