On Thursday, the liberal media’s mood was nothing short of ebullient with a New York Times scoop that Special Counsel Robert Mueller “has subpoenaed the Trump Organization to turn over documents, including some related to Russia.” MSNBC’s Hardball host Chris Matthews was one such figure, gleefully speculating that it could “lead to Trump’s impeachment.”
Matthews ignored the fact that the Mueller probe had already reached the White House as, in addition to other possibilities, former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn had become a central figure, but Matthews was still on the warpath as he reported in his opening tag: “Mueller at the White House gates. Let’s play Hardball.”
After the opening credits sequence, Matthews sternly reported without any quarrels that “the investigation led by Robert Mueller has approached the White House gates” and then read from The Times piece by Maggie Haberman and Michael Schmidt.
Without having stated any insider knowledge as to what could be gleaned from the Trump Organization’s financial records, Matthews speculated that this could kickstart the process to remove Trump from office:
According to the report, “it is the first known instance of the special counsel demanding documents directly related to President Trump's businesses, bringing the investigation closer to the President.” While the scope of Mueller's order is unclear, the subpoena could relate to two areas of the probe that might ultimately lead to Trump's impeachment: Potential financial improprieties — improprieties related to Russia and possible collusion during the campaign.
“Mueller's subpoena of Trump's business records could lead to an historic reckoning. It comes after the president warned the special counsel last summer any investigation of his personal finances would cross a red line,” the lefty pundit added.
Matthews’s hyperbole was further undermined moments later when he mentioned how former Trump campaign aide Sam Nunberg (who spent March 5 on a mind-numbingly crazy media tour) stated almost two weeks earlier that, based on his experience while speaking to Mueller’s team, they might “have something” on the President related to his business.
That’s not to say that Thursday’s news was not an insignificant story. However, it was nothing short of sensationalism to automatically assume (without any evidence) that a subpoena to look at the Trump Organization’s financial records will result in Trump’s removal from office.
To see the relevant transcript from MSNBC’s Hardball on March 15, click “expand.”
MSNBC’s Hardball
March 15, 2018
7:00 p.m. EasternCHRIS MATTHEWS: Mueller at the White House gates. Let’s play Hardball. [HARDBALL OPENING CREDITS] Good evening. I'm Chris Matthews in Washington. Tonight, the investigation led by Robert Mueller has approached the White House gates. The New York Times reports that Robert Mueller “has subpoenaed the Trump Organization to turn over documents, including some related to Russia.” According to the report, “it is the first known instance of the special counsel demanding documents directly related to President Trump's businesses, bringing the investigation closer to the President.” While the scope of Mueller's order is unclear, the subpoena could relate to two areas of the probe that might ultimately lead to Trump's impeachment: Potential financial improprieties — improprieties related to Russia and possible collusion during the campaign. Mueller subpoenaed his Trump's business records could lead to an historic reckoning. It comes after the president warned the special counsel last summer any investigation of his personal finances would cross a red line. Let’s listen.
MICHAEL SCHMIDT: Mueller was looking at your finances, or your family's finances unrelated to Russia, is that a red line?
MAGGIE HABERMAN: Would that be a breach of what his actual charge is?
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I would say yes. I would say yes.
SCHMIDT: If he was outside that lane, would that mean he would have to go?
HABERMAN: Would you be — would you consider —
TRUMP: No, I think that's a violation.
MATTHEWS: Today's development comes after multiple outlets reported that the special counsel is digging into the influence of foreign money on President Trump's political activities as well as his business dealings before he launched his campaign. Just last week, a witness who’s questioned by Mueller's prosecutors, former campaign adviser Sam Nunberg, said he believes the special counsel already has evidence of possible illegalities which he thinks are related to the Trump Organization.
SAM NUNBERG [on MSNBC’s The Beat with Ari Melber, 03/05/18]: They probably have something on Trump, Trump did something pretty bad if I had assume.
ARI MELBER [on MSNBC’s The Beat with Ari Melber, 03/05/18]: What do they have?
NUNBERG [on MSNBC’s The Beat with Ari Melber, 03/05/18]: I don’t know. I have no idea but they have something.
MELBER [on MSNBC’s The Beat with Ari Melber, 03/05/18]: Do you think they were more interested in Trump related to the criminal hacking which occurred and we know there was stolen mails or in relation to all the social media and the sanctions?
NUNBERG [on MSNBC’s The Beat with Ari Melber, 03/05/18]: I think they were interested in something with his business.
MELBER: [on MSNBC’s The Beat with Ari Melber, 03/05/18]: You felt they were asking you more about potential crimes related to the Trump organization rather than the Trump campaign?
NUNBERG [on MSNBC’s The Beat with Ari Melber, 03/05/18]: That's what I felt yeah.
MATTHEWS: Well, responding to news of the subpoena, the Trump Organization released a statement saying: “Since July of 2017, we have advised the public that the Trump Organization is fully cooperative with all investigations including the Special Counsel and is responding to their requests,” adding “this is old news.”
(....)
7:07 p.m. Eastern
MATTHEWS [TO MIMI ROCAH]: Tell me about the way the laws could have been broken here. I mean, it seems to me the Trump family, and I can sign them all to this particular description, they don't know how to separate business from politics. It's always two-fisted, they're going in for both and they don't ever separate the money potential from the public affairs you might call it.
