Newsmax Host Twists Himself Into Knots Trying To Defend Trump Tapes

Newsmax host Greg Kelly did everything he could to try and spin the leaking of the Trump tapes where the former president was showing off classified information, and he ended up twisting himself into knots in his attempt to defend Trump's actions. At one point, Kelly even said that the fact that Trump asked for beverages is proof that he didn't think he was breaking the law - a claim that doesn't actually even mean anything in the legal world. Ring of Fire's Farron Cousins explains what Kelly was trying to do.

Check out our merch by visiting our store

Subscribe to our podcast

Become a member today!

Support us by becoming a monthly patron on Patreon, and help keep progressive media alive!

Spread the word! LIKE and SHARE this video or leave a comment to help direct attention to the stories that matter. And SUBSCRIBE to stay connected with Ring of Fire's video content!

Support Ring of Fire by subscribing to our YouTube channel

Be sociable! Follow us on:

*This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription software company, so please excuse any typos.

Newsmax host Greg Kelly this week, managed to twist himself into knots trying to defend the release of the infamous Bedminster Trump tape, where he's heard on tape, flapping around the classified document, showing it to somebody saying, look, look at this. This is it. By the way, don't tell anybody. It's still classified. And I didn't declassify it, but Greg Kelly thought that he came up with a stellar defense for Donald Trump. So I'm going to let Greg Kelly tell you in his own words why this tape proves somehow that Donald Trump didn't do what he says he is doing on the tape. Take a listen.

I think he's asking there, I think we can probably let these people know this information if they wanna write about it. Remember, what did the New York Times say about this kind of stuff? The leaking of secrets has long been a favored tool of policy, debate, political combat, and diplomatic. One upsmanship. Finally, he asked for some refreshments.

It's so cool. So look, we here, I have, and you probably almost didn't believe me, but now you believe me. No, I believe you. It's incredible, right? No, he brings some, uh, brings some cokes in, please.

Yeah. When you're talking about, let's have a few diet Cokes, you don't think you're in the middle of a crime, and he was not in the middle of a crime and the political combat. Yeah, I mean, the entire swamp was coming at him after his presidency. Remember the fear about he wanted to invade Iran, just like he said,

Well, there you have it, folks. If you ask for a soda after committing a crime, then apparently no crime was committed. So you, I mean, I, I guess that means under Greg Kelly's logic, like you can walk in and rob a bank and after they give you all the money, say, oh, and by the way, before I go, do you have a Coke back there? I could have, I'm a little thirsty. And then the bank's gonna be like, oh no, he used the soda defense. We cannot prosecute him. You bastard. Um, what the hell? Like, is that really the best you've got? Like we are now at the point where we have these idiot conservatives that are like, well, it can't be a crime if he had a soda after. That's like saying you can't say Jeffrey Dahmer was a cannibal because he went out for burgers later that evening.

It do. It doesn't matter what you're eating or drinking after the crime is committed, that has no bearing on the commission of a crime. But I will say, I, I do think there is a reason that Greg Kelly went down this very idiotic path, you know, trying to defend the indefensible, basically, because he's trying to say there was no intent. He just wasn't smart enough to come up with that. Uh, you know, phrasing. He's trying to say that of course, because he had a soda. He was very calm. That shows he wasn't intending to break the law. And if there's no intent, there's no crime. Which in many instances, that is the case, but not every instance. And by the way, ignorance of the law is no defense either. In this particular instance, the intent is not the intent to break the law. The intent was to intentionally show someone something that they didn't have the clearance to see.

So that's the intent. It doesn't have to be that Trump went in there knowing he was going to break the law. Okay? That's not how intent works. Intent means, did you knowingly show the person this document? Yes, you did. Okay. That is the intent.