The Brett Baier interview with Trump

Was this a total admission of guilt or a key means to show his hand at what his defense will be?

Seems to me that it is never a good idea to tip your hand as to what defense you are attempting to make or a good idea for anyone indicted for a crime to go on FOX news and give an interview as to the substance of the claim. All that being said, there seems to be a bit of a disconnect as to how this interview might affect his case.

Many journalists and legal experts seem to suggest that this was Donald Trump "admitting" guilt and that this was a death blow. The hand wringing is over the top.

But at least one legal analysts (Jonathan Turley) is suggesting that Trump is actually providing what his defense will be, for good or for bad. When I read everything back in this context, perhaps it makes more sense for Trump to do this interview. After all, there are going to be two trials. One in court and one in the court of public opinion. If he had no plans to testify in court, he needs to get out his reasoning to the electorate.

Now for me, the defense was never going to try to go with the whole "we didn't do it" routine. There were documents. They were subpoenaed. He did not turn them over fast enough. They raided his estate and took them forcibly. All of this is already set in stone.

Trump could not demand that there were not documents or that he did turn them over. So is admitting what everyone knows as fact really an admission of guilt, or is it simply an admission of reality?

Donald Trump "defense" on all of this was always going to be some sort of justification for "why" he had the documents and "why" there were not turned over when asked. At this point it appears Trump is going to go with the accusation that NARA and the FBI were simply not patient enough to allow him the time to go through what needed to be gone through before turning them over. He suggested to Baier that he was still going through the boxes, looking to separate out all of his personal belongings and that he always intended to turn over anything that was classified, once it was all sorted out. What was the rush he seems to be asking?

Sure... this admits that he didn't turn over the documents. But didn't we already know that? At the end of the day Smith's biggest problem will be Trump's state of mind. If Trump keeps insisting publicly that he was right to do what he did, then how can you show he intended to harm the United States (one of the key elements that Smith will need to prove).

Now I am not sure if this the greatest defense in the history of trials, but it seems to be the best available to Trump. It does little to explain why the FBI got letters that there was no more classified documents, but it does provide a plausible reason why he believed he had the right to hang on to everything. Keep in mind, if he gets a favorable jury, he might only need a half assed marginally believable defense to provide the excuse to acquit him. He doesn't need a bloody glove that doesn't fit.

As far as the document regarding secret war plans, Turley suggests that Trump is suggesting to Baier that the audiotape in question regarding the so called war plan was just a "reference" to something he had previously seen, but did not actually have with him at the time. His statement that he could have declassified it as President and showed it to them, but now he could not was because he no longer had the document and was no longer President. He denied to Baier that he had actual possession of the document when he made those comments.

What if the FBI claims that they found the document within all of the boxes? Do they have testimony from anyone who "saw" the document? Who knows at this point. Trump is already offering the possibility that the FBI might have planted documents. That sounds a little bit conspiracy theory to me, but not completely out of the realm of possibility. We already have evidence that the FBI staged photos that night in Mar-a-Lago and we have years of FBI harassment of Trump. So if a Jury can be swayed to consider that possibility (planted evidence), then that would be on the FBI.

Think back to the most famous trial of all time. O.J. Simpson was found not guilty largely on the fact that one detective (Mark Furman) was seen as being hostile to Simpson, out to get him, and it appeared that Furman probably planted evidence. Once it was determined that some evidence might have been planted, everything else had to be questioned, leading to the acquittal of Simpson in spite of other fairly strong evidence. It wouldn't take much for the same thing to happen to a public figure like Trump, whom only needs one juror who sees things his way to keep him from being convicted.