As we've noted, the fondest fantasy of MSNBC's bombastic weekend host Tiffany Cross is to have Donald Trump arrested, Cops-style. If by chance Cross was watching the rival liberal network CNN this morning, she likely got her hopes up, as a legal analyst there claimed that the indictment of Donald Trump is "imminent."
Here we go again. Four years ago, conservatives were already making fun out of how the cable networks incessantly predicted "the walls are closing in" on Trump. On Wednesday's New Day, legal analyst Joey Jackson was the latest doomsayer.
Jackson opined that there was more involved in the Mar-a-Lago raid than looking for evidence regarding classified documents. He suggested that the FBI was also looking for evidence of Trump's involvement with January 6th. Jackson then proceeded to drop this bombshell prognostication:
In my view, John, I think the issue here is that indictment -- and I’ll say it -- I think it's imminent as it relates to the president. Look at the timing and everything else. I think he’s in trouble. I think his surroundings: Jeffrey Clark, John Eastman, perhaps Mr. Giuliani. It’s going down, as they say.
Jackson seemed to be saying that the search will turn up evidence of Trump's criminality in connection with the January 6 riots, and that his indictment on those grounds is "imminent."
Co-host John Berman, perhaps a bit taken aback by Jackson's evidence-free prediction, walked things back a bit, saying: "Just to be clear, so people understand, our reporting as of now is this has to do with the issue of archives and documents. It is not directly related to January 6th, is our reporting."
But Berman then proceeded to float a wild theory of his own, saying:
"There could be a national-security reason here separate and aside from a criminal reason. You want to get these documents in a safe place as fast as you can, period, and that might not necessarily mean you ultimately press charges."
Berman seemed to be insinuating the possibility that the FBI wanted to seize certain documents of a sensitive national-security nature before, e.g., Trump could peddle them to a hostile foreign power!
Yikes! And like Jackson, Berman offered no evidence in support of his audacious theory.
On New Day, CNN legal analyst Joey Jackson predicting that the indictment of Donald Trump was "imminent," was sponsored in part by Verizon, Downy, and Sandals.
Here's the transcript.
CNN
New Day
8/10/22
6:05 am EDTJOHN BERMAN: Let's go back to the search at Mar-a-Lago. Joining me now CNN legal analyst and criminal defense attorney Joey Jackson, and former federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York, and professor at Cardozo law school, Jessica Roth.
Joey, reports this morning that the FBI took 12 boxes of stuff out of Mar-a-Lago when they searched it Monday. Does that seem like a lot?
JOEY JACKSON: Look, anything, right, would seem like a lot when it furthers a criminal investigation. We don't know, right, how large the boxes are, how many documents are within those boxes.I think, though, to be misled by the notion that it simply dealt with declassified documents, I think would be misleading. I think there’s a lot more here that we have to connect the dots to.
Is there any information in there with respect to January 6th that would further the notion of what he was doing, who he was communicating with—any documents centered around that? And so, the fact is, is that we are in uncharted waters here, right? Who goes to a president's residence to take documents?
In my view, John, I think the issue here is that indictment -- and I’ll say it -- I think it's imminent as it relates to the president. Look at the timing and everything else. I think he’s in trouble. I think his surroundings: Jeffrey Clark, John Eastman, perhaps Mr. Giuliani. It’s going down, as they say.
BERMAN: Just to be clear, so people understand, our reporting as of now is this has to do with the issue of archives and documents. It is not directly related to January 6th, is our reporting. It doesn't mean if they find something connected to January 6th they can't take it if it's in plain sight.
. . .
There could be a national security reason here, sort of separate and aside from a criminal reason. You want to get these documents in a safe place as fast as you can, period! And that might not necessarily mean you ultimately press charges.
JESSICA ROTH: Absolutely, and it’s important to make a distinction between the legal standard necessary to obtain a search warrant, which is probable cause. And the legal standard necessary to convict somebody at trial, which is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It’s the same standard to seek an indictment, but prosecutors, especially in these circumstances, would not pursue an indictment unless they were confident that they had proof beyond a reasonable doubt to convict.
