Trump ‘put himself in jeopardy’ with Wednesday night rant on classified docs: CNN legal expert

New York Law professor Rebecca Roiphe argued on CNN Thursday that former President Donald Trump’s comments about the Mar-a-Lago classified document investigation during his town hall the previous night were a disaster for him that potentially puts him in legal jeopardy.

“To the lawyer at the table, he said a lot that I am sure his lawyers wouldn’t be thrilled about hearing,” said anchor Poppy Harlow. “But I want your take on the classified document exchange that they had last night at Mar-a-Lago. Let’s listen.”

She then played footage of Trump and moderator Kaitlan Collins

“Did you ever show those classified documents to anyone?” asked Collins in the clip.

“Not really,” said Trump. “I would have the right to. By the way, they were declassified—”

READ MORE: Pence adviser rips apart Trump’s J6 falsehoods: ‘We were inches away from a massacre’

“What do you mean, ‘not really’?” Collins pressed him.

“Not that I can think of,” said Trump. “I have the absolute right to do what I want to do with them. I had the right.”

Roiphe then explained why this statement was particularly problematic for Trump’s defense in the case.

“His lawyers are much less happy with his performance than his political advisors, because he put himself in jeopardy by making it clear that he handled these documents himself,” she said. “He did this on purpose and he thought he had every right to when, at least in certain ways, no matter what, he didn’t.”

Watch the video below or at this link.


Rebecca Roiphe says Trump further jeopardized himself on classified documents

www.youtube.com

Related articles

MAGA county clerk will get new sentence in 2020 election plot



An appeals court tossed out a nine-year sentence for discredited Colorado election clerk Tina Peters.

The Donald Trump ally will be re-sentenced by a district court judge after the Colorado Court of Appeals upheld her conviction but found that Mesa County District Court Judge Matthew Barrett had wrongly based part of his sentence on Peters’ exercise of her right to free speech, reported the Denver Post.

“Notwithstanding the fact that some of the trial court’s considerations were tied to proper sentencing considerations, when the court’s comments are viewed in their totality, it is apparent that the court imposed the lengthy sentence it did because Peters continued to espouse the views that led her to commit these crimes,” the opinion states.

The "tenor" of Barrett's original sentencing order indicates that he "punished" Peters for her persistence in insisting the 2020 election had been fraudulent and that keeping her in prison was necessary to prevent her from espousing views the judge felt were "damaging," and the appeals court sent the case back to him for a resentencing.

The appellate court found there was sufficient evidence to convict Peters and that she was not immune to state prosecution, and the judges also found that a purported pardon from Trump carried no authority under Colorado law.

The court denied Peters' request that a new judge resentence her, saying that issue should be raised in a lower court, and ruled that a prosecutor’s description of her case during closing arguments had no impact on the verdict.

“The evidence of her knowledge of the illegality of her conduct is so overwhelming, we simply cannot say that the prosecutor’s statement (even if improper) had any impact on the verdict, let alone an impact so great as to cause serious doubt about the reliability of the judgment of conviction,” the panel found.

Peters, now 70, was convicted by a Mesa County jury of four felony and three misdemeanor crimes for plotting to sneak unauthorized individuals into a secure area to examine voting equipment to look for evidence of voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election.