Former President Donald Trump’s highly publicized interview this week with Fox News’s Bret Baier left a number of conservatives banging their heads on their desks in massive frustration.
At issue was the former president’s seeming admission to purposefully holding onto boxes of classified documents after leaving office.
During the Fox News interview, Baier asked the former president why he didn’t just return the boxes to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) after they’d requested them back.
“Because … I want[ed] to go through the boxes and get all my personal things out. I don’t want to hand that over to [NARA]. I was very busy, as you’ve sort of seen,” Trump replied.
According to Republican presidential candidate Chris Christie, this was a veritable admission of guilt:
“Last night, I think the worst moment for [Trump] was talking about the fact that he just didn’t have time to go through these boxes in response to the grand jury subpoena. Yet he told the government and had his lawyer certify that he had returned all of the documents that were responsive to the subpoena,” Christie said Tuesday morning.
“That is obstruction of justice. And it appears to me last night as a former prosecutor, that he admitted obstruction of justice on the air last night to Bret Baier. I can tell you this, his lawyers this morning are jumping out of whatever window they’re near,” he added.
Christie wasn’t alone in reaching this conclusion.
“Guys, Trump admitted on TV tonight he withheld documents from the grand jury. Game over, legally. What an idiot,” conservative radio show host Erick Erickson tweeted Monday evening.
Guys, Trump admitted on TV tonight he withheld documents from the grand jury. Game over, legally. What an idiot.
— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) June 20, 2023
Erickson further expanded on his complaints in a blog post.
“I get he needed to sort through the boxes and he ‘was very busy,’ but that’s not a defense to a grand jury subpoena,” he wrote.
“This was a really, really bad idea for him to do this. It’s no wonder he is struggling to find and retain good counsel. This was just not a good idea on his part to participate in an interview like that,” he added.
Ed Morrissey of Hot Air echoed Erickson’s concerns.
“The first rule of Federal Indictment Club is: you don’t talk about your case. And the second rule of Federal Indictment Club is … REALLY don’t do this. Did Trump just admit to obstruction — on national television?” he tweeted.
Like Erickson, Morrissey also expanded on his thoughts in a blog post.
“[I]t certainly sounds like a tacit admission of deliberate obstruction in regard to the subpoena. … 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,” he wrote.
“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,” he added.
According to commentator David Reaboi, Trump should have never discussed his legal case with Fox News in the first place:
He should not be commenting on this at all, as it makes him look worse. Has he ever made one of his legal issues better by talking about them in detail in interviews? pic.twitter.com/Gw0ts1l6OG
— David Reaboi, Late Republic Nonsense (@davereaboi) June 19, 2023
Last up is Tim Parlatore, one of Trump’s own former attorneys. Speaking on CNN this Tuesday, he was asked point-blank whether the former president’s remarks amount to obstruction of justice.
“It’s difficult to know. This is one of the reasons why we always advise our clients, ‘Don’t talk about the case. You have the right to remain silent. Use it. Let your attorneys talk about it,'” he replied.
However, he added that it’s possible Trump got confused by the question.
“I look at the answer that he gave there. He says, ‘Yeah, I did want to give it back to NARA yet.’ So was he actually possibly mixing up the question and talking about the first set of boxes before the subpoena?” he said.
Not that it ultimately matters.
“But here’s the problem. Putting that statement out there – with that question – yes, the prosecutors can absolutely use that. And even if he meant that he was talking about the NARA request as opposed to the subpoena request, that’s gonna be very difficult at trial,” he continued.
“How are you gonna overcome that? Are you gonna cross-examine Bret Baier on, you know, ‘What do you think he meant?’ Or are you going to put Donald Trump on the stand and say, ‘Would you like to clarify it?’ It’s a difficult situation,” Parlatore concluded.
He could not talk about specifics, but Parlatore added that the only two clients who have shunned his advice to shut up about their cases were Donald J. Trump and rapper Ice-T.
Writers and editors can be contacted at [email protected] with feedback, tips, or corrections.
V. Saxena is a staff writer with a decade of experience as a professional writer, and a lifetime of experience as an avid news junkie. He holds a degree in computer technology from Purdue University. Saxena also contributes to BizPac Review.
Comment
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.