Kasie Hunt managed to make me miss Jake Tapper and Dana Bash on CNN's State of the Union this Sunday with her concern trolling over whether it's "dangerous for the country" if the judge in New York tosses Felon 45's butt in jail just before the Republican National Convention in July. I swear to God, every one of her questions to Rep. Adam Schiff could have just as easily been written by @DougJBalloon, a.k.a. the New York Times Pitchbot on Xitter.
Hunt started things off by asking Schiff to respond to Lara Trump's whining during her previous interview on the same show, where she went after Republican senate candidate Larry Hogan for heaven forbid saying Republicans should respect the verdict in Trump's trial, and you've gotta' love Schiff's respose:
SCHIFF: Well, first, in terms of Lara Trump's interview and her complaining about the case being tried in New York before New York jury, if you don't want to be tried in front of a New York jury, then maybe don't commit so many crimes in New York City. It's pretty simple.
And that jury was selected in part by Donald Trump and his attorneys. They vetted each of the jurors. He had every right that every other criminal defendant has in that courtroom.
And they found -- this ordinary jury of peers found him guilty on every single count. So, if you don't want to be tried in New York, don't commit crimes in New York. But he got the same due process as any other person. And that's exactly the way it should be.
Ouch. Schiff also whacked Trump for again hoping to incite violence from his supporters and Lara Trump for trying to "explain it away."
Hunt then asked Schiff whether the prosecutors ought to be asking for jail time for Trump, and again, Schiff's answer was spot on.
SCHIFF: I think what the prosecutors should do, and, for that matter, what the judge should do is look at, what are the sentences given out in New York for like felons, people that have committed felonies of that nature that Donald Trump committed?
They should recommend a sentence no greater or no less than any other citizen would get for committing those kinds of crimes. Now, I do think the judge should consider, as any judge would against any defendant, has the defendant accepted responsibility? Have they shown remorse? Are they willing to make restitution?
In this case, as you can see from the moment he stepped out of that courthouse, Donald Trump shows no acceptance of responsibility, and that ought to be weighed against him, as the judge would against any American who's convicted on a multiple counts and takes no responsibility.
Which all apparently went into one ear and out the other with Hunt, who followed up with some deep concern over the "timing" of all of it, as though our legal system should conform to Trump's political calendar.
HUNT: But, sir, considering that this sentencing is likely to occur just days before the start of the convention and months before he's to be the Republican nominee in November, do you think it would be dangerous for the country if Donald Trump were sentenced to jail?
Well, whose fault is that, Kasie? Trump ran for office specifically so he could stay out of prison. Heaven forbid at least one court got in the way of those plans. Once again, Schiff's response was absolutely correct, other than not calling her out for her pathetic question.
SCHIFF: No, I don't think it would be dangerous for the country.
And we have seen Trump urge mass protests outside the courthouse that never materialized. But, nevertheless, this is, I think, what Donald Trump is aiming for. This is essentially his threat that, if he gets jail time, that he's going to encourage his supporters to rise up.
And we saw the very deadly results of that on January 6. So I don't think the public is going to respond to that call. I hope we learned something from the awful experience of January 6.
But it's very clear what Donald Trump is suggesting here. And this is something, I think, that the judge needs to take into consideration also, not to be intimidated by that threat, but as of further evidence this defendant not only doesn't accept responsibility, but is willing to endanger people, just as Trump is willing to violate the gag order and potentially endanger witnesses or jurors or the judge himself or family members.
That's something the judge ought to be considering.
Yes it is. It's amazing to me that Hunt and way too many others in the media have been willing to just sweep how horrifically Trump has acted right under the rug given the fact that if he gets back in power, their own media organizations and the people that work for them will be one of the first things he goes after.
Good for Schiff for refusing to buy into her framing and responding to Trump's criminality in the manner it deserves.
