‘I’ve Had My Phone Blown Up!’ MSNBC Analyst Pushes Back After Trump Quotes Her During Courthouse Rant

MSNBC legal analyst Catherine Christian pushed back after former President Donald Trump name-checked her in the middle of his morning rundown of pro-Trump pundits, and said her phone blew up after the rant.

Trump showed up Thursday morning to give his customary rant before going into court as the jury continued deliberating the 34 felony counts against him in the Stormy Daniels hush money trial— but among conservative pundits like Gregg Jarrett, Mark Levin, National Review, and Judge Jeanine Pirro, Trump threw in a few quotes from Christian, as well as CNN’s Elie Honig:

Elie Honig, legal analyst for CNN. “The crime here is not easy to explain or to understand.”

It’s just not understandable.

In other words, there is no crime. This is CNN.

Catherine Christian from MSNBC. I call it MSDNC. A legal analyst. “It’s difficult because it’s a very nuanced argument. It’s never been prosecuted before.”

This is an argument that has never been prosecuted before, and hopefully they’ll never be prosecuted again. And regard that this is anything but standard. It’s the antithesis of standard.

The clips in question come from MSNBC’s and CNN’s Trump trial coverage, respectively:

On Thursday’s edition of MSNBC’s Ana Cabrera Reports, host Ana Cabrera asked Christian about the rant, and called Trump out for drawing a false inference:

ANA CABRERA: I have to tell you, Donald Trump actually quoted he said it was a quote of you, from yesterday.

CATHERINE CHRISTIAN: I’ve had my phone blown up about that.

ANA CABRERA: Here’s here’s what he said this morning when he was going into the courthouse. He said, “Catherine Christian from MSNBC legal analyst difficult, says it’s difficult because it’s a very nuanced argument. It’s never been prosecuted before. It’s an argument that’s never been prosecuted before, and hopefully it’ll never be prosecuted again.”.

I mean, is the president taking your comments in the right context? Is that even the right quote?

CATHERINE CHRISTIAN: That first part is actually what Danny said. It is a very nuanced argument, and I think that could be one of the reasons why they want the jury instructions read back, you know.

Okay. You know, conspiracy to promote an election by unlawful means and the unlawful means is one of these three. So you have to think about what does that mean. And then the facts.

ANA CABRERA: He’s trying to suggest, though, that that comment means it’s a weak case. And that wasn’t. (No.) The nature of your comments.

CATHERINE CHRISTIAN: It’s a very nuanced case. It’s a novel– falsifying business records. First of all, if you are in New York and you do investigations, you prosecute that all the time, because if someone is looting their company, they’re falsifying business records.

If they’re committing tax fraud, they’re falsifying this records. So it is charged all the time.

What’s different is how it’s charged here. The election fraud of the federal campaign, violation. That’s what makes it different.

So it’s not is an easy lift, but I think the prosecutors and Josh Steinglass did a very good job explaining it. And Judge Merchan did it. I mean, he is an excellent judge. I’m biased, but he’s an excellent judge. He knows the law. He spent a lot of time.

ANA CABRERA: But you’re biased because you have experience in this —

CATHERINE CHRISTIAN: Experience and I’m familiar with him.

ANA CABRERA: –this courthouse.

CATHERINE CHRISTIAN: But he’s– this will be if there’s conviction. Obviously they’re going to appeal the jury instructions. I think the judge said that before.

But I do think the Appellate Division who who’s the intermediary court and the Court of Appeals will end up again. I’m jumping ahead that there’s a conviction, but assuming there is, I think that will be the appellate issue.

But I think it will be upheld because Judge Merchan was very careful. He just didn’t make things up. He made sure it was very legally correct. Again, that’s my opinion and I’m sure other people have a different opinion on.

Watch above via Pool.