Former President Trump dropped a bombshell on the race for president Thursday night, an announcement that he had been indicted for willfully holding onto classified documents. But while many of his detractors in the liberal media were doing their happy dance, Chris Cuomo was on his eponymous NewsNation show with independent journalist Matt Taibbi, where both men cast doubt on the charges and had some pretty intense criticisms, including a comparison to a third-world country.
Towards the end of the show, which was entirely dedicated to the Trump Indictment, Cuomo introduced his guest and had some critical words for investigators. He chided that he wasn’t sure if they were “intentionally or unintentionally helping” Trump “because every time there's a swing, it seems to expose the fact they go after him with what seems to be at or below a level of anything that would be impressive to people reviewing the documents.”
Taibbi agreed and reminded viewers that he was “not a fan” of Trump but he had a simple test that any charges directed at a person in Trump’s position needed to pass. Taibbi felt the charges against Trump failed:
But you know, my feeling is if you're going to take the very extreme step of indicting somebody who's the likely nominee of the opposition party, the charge to meet two tests: it has to be extremely serious and it has to be an airtight case.
And I think both of these cases fail on both of those points.
Cuomo followed up by recounting a conversation he had with a friend who wanted Trump in prison at all costs. “I think that to the majority, the optics are terrible. If you swing at somebody during an election and you don't have what we deem ‘the goods,’” he disagreed.
The harshest criticism came from Taibbi who suggested the actions of the Department of Justice were like something you would find overseas. “I think if you are a person who grew up in a third-world country, you would recognize this kind of thing is something that in a not-entirely-free society,” he argued. “So, that's the optics of this are terrible. There’s no way around it.”
Trump was being charged under the Espionage Ace and Taibbi recalled how Barack Obama weaponized it when he was president. “Also, you have to consider the context. Barack Obama, who I voted for twice, set the record for the use of the Espionage Act against leakers. He used it against journalists,” he informed viewers. With that in mind, he surmised that “the average person” would view the charges as “kind of a technicality.”
Taibbi did have an idea about what kind of cases would give prosecutors and Trump’s detractors the outcome they wanted:
You know, look, in the case of Donald Trump, if you're going to pick a case and you really think that this is a person who needs to be in jail, I think you've got to pick a really serious case. I mean, I think it had to be connected to January 6th or, you know, voter intimidation in Georgia or something like that. That's something the ordinary voter can say, “All right. I get it. You got to go to trial over that. That's really, really serious. Let's see if they have the evidence for that.” And I think people would accept that.
“But these kinds of cases, you know, paying off of a former prostitute and, you know, now and this case, the retention of records. It's just not the same kind of thing,” he scoffed.
The transcript is below, click "expand" to read:
NewsNation’s Cuomo
June 8, 2023
8:54:27 p.m. Eastern(…)
CHRIS CUOMO: So, these concerns, you know, everybody loves conspiracies these days. I'm not so sure that these investigations aren't done in a way that winds up to intentionally or unintentionally helping the former President to be honest, because every time there's a swing, it seems to expose the fact they go after him with what seems to be at or below a level of anything that would be impressive to people reviewing the documents.
What’s your take on this?
MATT TAIBBI: Yeah, I agree with you. I’m obviously not a fan of Donald Trump. I wrote a book about the guy called Insane Clown President. But you know, my feeling is if you're going to take the very extreme step of indicting somebody who's the likely nominee of the opposition party, the charge to meet two tests: it has to be extremely serious and it has to be an airtight case.
And I think both of these cases fail on both of those points.
CUOMO: You know, a buddy of mine who is a very smart guy and a lawyer, but, you know, just to kind of consumer of all things relevant like yourself. He was like, “Ay, I don't care that it's during the election. The fact that you're running shouldn't shield you. Maybe he's running because he knows it's his best defense on these things.”
Maybe. But I think that to the majority, the optics terrible. If you swing at somebody during an election and you don't have what we deem “the goods.”
Now, what does that look like in this case? Do you think it comes down to, well what are the documents he was keeping?
TAIBBI: Well, again, I mean, I think if you are a person who grew up in a third world country, you would recognize this kind of thing is something that in a not-entirely-free society. So, that's the optics of this are terrible. There’s no way around it.
Also, you have to consider the context. Barack Obama, who I voted for twice, set the record for the use of the Espionage act against leakers. He used it against journalists.
There's also the case involving Julian Assange, which a lot of people think an abuse of power. That's an Espionage Act case.
This case, you know, has a whiff of you know, it's the kind of thing where it's an extremely serious felony that can put somebody away for a lot of years that really to the average person looks like it's kind of a technicality. And I just don't see how they it's going to down to their benefit in an election year.
(…)
8:58:39 p.m. Eastern
CUOMO: Matt, what do you think the fix is?
TAIBBI: The fix? Well, I just think they need to be more transparent and – You know, look, in the case of Donald Trump, if you're going to pick a case and you really think that this is a person who needs to be in jail, I think you've got to pick a really serious case. I mean, I think it had to be connected to January 6th or, you know, voter intimidation in Georgia or something like that.
That's something the ordinary voter can say, “All right. I get it. You got to go to trial over that. That's really, really serious. Let's see if they have the evidence for that.” And I think people would accept that. But these kinds of cases, you know, paying off of a former prostitute and, you know, now and this case, the retention of records. It's just not the same kind of thing.
(…)
