‘Very problematic for Trump’: Haberman on audio recording obtained by prosecutors

Former President Trump is no stranger to making many comments that make many headlines. Caught on tape between the Access Hollywood tape that emerged just before the 2016 election and the

recording

of him asking Georgia election officials to, quote, find votes to help him change the results of the 2020 election. Now his History of potentially harmful

audio

tapes adds a new chapter. As we have been reporting this morning, federal

prosecutors

obtained

a

recording

of former President Donald Trump acknowledging that he had a classified document about a possible attack on Iran after he had left the White House and also suggesting in that recording that he wants to share the information, but his ability to do so was limited by his post-presidency ability to declassify records.

Join us now, CNN political analyst and New York Times senior political correspondent Maggie Haberman, it's a pleasure to have you with us. So the way this was detailed to our team of reporters, when they revealed this about the recording, it's three parts, right? The fact that this document existed, apparently, that there were conversations about it and that the former president recognized at that time that he wanted to share it. But there were those limitations that really affect several of the explanations, in quotes, that we have heard from the former president. And these don't add up. Now, look, there has been a lot of news in the investigation of these documents, various media outlets.

We have had some, you have had some. This one is

very

significant. And it's a big deal for the reason you just said there. These are documents number one that were in his possession, documents that he had with him in Bedminster, which is a different place from Mar a Lago where the search had focused. But more specifically, whatever that document was, because Trump is not the most reliable narrator about what that document was. And we know, and you have reported, that Mark Milley did not actually produce this document. Good. What matters most is that Trump says again: I haven't heard the tape.

Nobody has done it yet. But our report is also that Trump says something about the limits of his classification capabilities. Let him know that he expresses some regret for not declassifying this particular matter while he was president. That undermines the excuse they've given time and time again that he had the ability to do it. He automatically declassified e

very

thing. I saw Jim Trusty on this network last night, Trump's lawyer said exactly that, and then specifically did not answer whether this document was declassified. Y. Yes, and by the way, I don't see that question: is it in the National Archives now?

That's how it is. And I understand why he wants to answer those questions, but then don't go on TV and say, I'm not going to sit here without answering these questions. You know, in addition to making the customer happy, this tape is being described by several sources as very

problematic

for Trump. Now, again, you know, this investigation is still ongoing. We don't know where it's going to end. But of all the evidence we know of, this is the most damning I've heard. And it reminds us that there is a lot we don't know about what

prosecutors

have, so much we don't know and so much more that could be available, especially when it comes to recordings, because the recordings were often made with the former president. .

Well, actually, I think that's another piece that really stands out to me about this number one: Trump is very paranoid about people taking notes and he's very paranoid about tapes. He was famous when he was a businessman for claiming that he was recording other people. The people of Mar a Lago always thought that the conversations were recorded. He knew that they were recording him, that his own assistants were recording because they thought it was for a book by Mark Meadows. There is an irony in the fact that this relates to Mark Meadows, whose kind of existence has been central to investigators in various parts of the January 6th investigation, etc.

And he hadn't been a key part of the document research that we knew about before. This is significant. But Trump was aware that his assistants were routinely recorded because they were recording all these book interviews. The interviews I did with him for my book that same year were all recorded. He was aware of it. So it's not like it's a secret recording, but he has this urge, you know, in certain environments to brag. And that's really what it seemed like. You and Jonathan Swan have some really interesting new reporting in The Times about the particular interest that the federal investigation's special counsel, Jack Smith, has taken on Trump's mentality.

When he fired Chris Krebs, this was after Krebs said, look, the election of '20, '20 was the safest election we've ever had. He was the top cybersecurity official during the Trump administration. Why does Jack Smith want to know what Trump was thinking when he fired Krebs? Well, what we think he's trying to do, as is also the case with the documents case, and part of why this tape is important. It's about mentality. It's about what exactly he was thinking when he made certain decisions. And so is the idea, you know, that these subpoenas relate to staff, White House office officials.

You know, who would compile this dossier on the misdeeds that the Krebs allegedly committed, which, you know, I think a lot of people who looked at it would have a different view? But that's basically something that Smith is looking at, he's trying to figure out how the White House interacted with Krebs, with the Justice Department, as Trump took various actions in relation to his efforts to claim this. The other investigation, Jackson's part. Yes, that is correct. There's Jackson. This team is up to a lot. And so, you know, the document investigation is, I think, the most distilled and limited fact that, because it's clear that we know what we're talking about, the January 6 investigation into your question about why he careful?

There are so many different offshoots of that research. And this is one of them. And part of that too, in his report in this article he also mentions this loyalty test, in quotes, around that same time. That's also important when it comes to mindset, when it comes to where exactly everyone was and has been asking questions about this loyalty test, which my colleague Jonathan Swan broke the news about when he was at Axios that this existed. But they were basically trying it with political appointees and Krebs was a political appointee. Trump had appointed him. Trump had the right to fire him.

But, you know, trying to figure out whether this person was personally loyal or any random person was personally loyal to Trump versus, you know, the government in general is part of what Jack Smith's team has been asking questions about. Pretty solid signature. Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan. I'll take it. I'm very happy, right? Yes it's correct. Thank you. This is really interesting, Maggie. We appreciate it. So let's analyze this further. We want to bring this developing story to CNN national security analyst and former Deputy Director of National Intelligence Beth Sanner. Good to see you this morning.

You know, the classified documents in question here or the document in question was something as sensitive as plans about a possible attack on Iran. Do we know anything more about the document and who the president wanted to show it to? I don't know anything about this particular document, but I do know that General Miller's job as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is to respond to the president's requests to provide military options for something the president would want to do. I do not consider the role of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to be independent in proposing war plans.

War plans are proposed and provided in response to a question. And of course, you'll want that plan to be pretty solid. I mean, this is what surprises and amazes the Pentagon by attacking an adversary like Iran. So I think that's probably what was going on here, but I can't particularly say. So let's hear some snippets of what the former president has said about his handling of classified documents. He listens to this. It doesn't have to be a process, as I understand it. You know, there are different people who say different things. But like I said, that doesn't have to be the case if you're the president of the United States, you can declassify it just by saying it's declassified, even thinking about it.

I don't have any classified documents and by the way, they were automatically declassified when I took them. When it comes to your documents. Did you ever show those classified documents to anyone? Not precisely. I would have the right to do so. By the way, they would have survived later. I can not think of anything. So presidents have the power to declassify documents, but there is still a formal process, correct? Is it half here? What is your reaction? President Trump is absolutely right that any president has the right to declassify any material. They are literally men. They have that authority by law.

But the details here do matter. There is no automatic declassification. That, to me, sounds absolutely absurd. There are two things I would like to say here. First, there should be a process on how to do it for a reason. But first, there should be a purpose and no one really talks about that. Like the idea of ​​declassifying a war plan or any of the hundreds of other documents that were found. There should be a purpose. For example, when President Biden declassifies information to warn China not to sell weapons to Russia, that is a purpose here. I can't discern a purpose.

So it shouldn't be a whim. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. But the reason for the process is that in this case it gives the Pentagon, or the intelligence community, the opportunity to say, oh, if this information comes out, lives are at risk. The national security of the United States is at risk. We shouldn't do that. And normally a president would respond and say, okay, or can we redraft? Because there would be a purpose. The intelligence community would have to figure out how to extract someone whose life is at risk or how to protect this information.

Fascinating. Alright. Beth Santer, senior national security analyst, thank you very much for all that context.