Maggie Haberman Roasts Trump Team For Concocting ‘Really Strange’ Biden Example For Immunity Appeal

New York Times correspondent and CNN analyst Maggie Haberman mocked former President Donald Trump’s legal team over a “really strange” example about President Joe Biden in a new Supreme Court filing seeking total immunity.

Trump’s legal team submitted a lengthy filing Tuesday demanding “absolute immunity” for Trump in an appeal of an issue that has lost twice before in vociferous fashion.

The filing included a line about Biden. After listing examples like drone and cruise missile strikes, Trump’s attorneys wrote “In all of these instances, the President’s political opponents routinely accuse him, and currently accuse President Biden, of “criminal” behavior in his official acts. In each such case, those opponents later came to power with ample incentive to charge him.”

On Tuesday night’s edition of CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360, Haberman joined CNN analysts Adam Kinzinger and Jennifer Rodgers to break down the filing with anchor Anderson Cooper.

Cooper asked Haberman about the Biden example, and Haberman said it was mainly concocted by Trump and his allies:Haberman singled out the “contradictory positions” the Trump team is taking, as well as the reliance on quotes from Trump-appointed Justice Brett Kavanaugh:

COOPER: And Maggie, Trump’s lawyers, they invoked the drone strikes by President Obama, Middle East airstrikes launched by President Clinton around the time of the Monica Lewinsky scandal as examples of conduct they thought could be – could have been prosecuted.

And then they write: “In all of these instances, the President’s political opponents routinely accuse him, and currently accuse President Biden of ‘criminal’ behavior in his official acts. In each such case, those opponents later came to power with ample incentive to charge him.” How do you interpret …

HABERMAN: I think Biden example is really strange, considering that example about Biden is being made primarily by Trump and by people connected to Trump.

What they’re trying to say with the President Clinton and President Obama arguments is basically that there is no such thing as an official act that isn’t political, that you can’t divorce one from the other.

And I expect you will hear them make a version of that before the Supreme Court. I don’t know how compelling it’ll be, because when they tried going down this road in the lower court, one of the questions that came up was what if there was a – ordering SEAL – a SEAL six team to go assassinate a political rival.

And that got into a cul de sac that I’m not sure the Trump lawyers wanted to be in.

So you can argue yourself in one direction or another here. But I don’t think that any rational person thinks that drone strikes are the same. And they will try to suggest they were because he was talking to his vice president. But there is so much else that comprises what he’s been indicted for in connection with January 6th.

Watch above via Anderson Cooper 360.