I already know what you’re thinking, and I’m thinking it with you. One word: MSNBC. But even setting MSNBC aside, given the extraordinary degree of hypocrisy in the probe of former president Donald Trump’s classified documents vs. a similar probe of President Joe Biden, this thing stinks to high heaven.

MSNBC legal analyst Andrew Weissmann predicted on Monday on “The Last Word,” with self-proclaimed socialist host Lawrence O’Donnell, that Trump will be indicted this week in special counsel Jack Smith’s classified documents probe. Insider info, or wishful thinking? Either way, Weissman said:

A zillion stories about the Trump case, but the bottom line is he is getting charged and it will be in D.C., and this week. Open issues is [sic] is whether others may be charged and whether they will be in D.C. or Florida.

O’Donnell asked Weismann why he thinks the indictment(s) will come this week, to which he responded:

I think that’s based on a number of things but if you think about what we saw in the Manhattan case, we were looking to see that defense lawyers were given an opportunity to be heard. That’s really the thing that you do in a case like this at the final stage. And we saw the defense lawyers going in today to make their final attempt about why there should not be charges.

I just think in this case, knowing Jack Smith and his team, and the people hearing the appeal that it is extremely unlikely that they would be hearing something that would lead them to conclude that there should not be charges. And this is the sort of the thing you do at the very end.

I also think that there is internal pressure, even if they’re not admitting it themselves, that this is a case that needs to be brought to the American public. They need to know whether this happen [sic] or not, and it needs to be brought to trial.

As those who like to use the overused term “unpacked” like to say, there’s a helluva lot to be unpacked in Weissman’s above comments. First, as we reported on Monday, Trump’s lawyers did, in fact, meet with Department of Justice lawyers at DOJ headquarters on Monday for just under two hours. I’m not a lawyer, but that seems like a relatively short time, given the stakes in the case.

Here’s more, from RedState’s Brittany Sheehan in the above-linked article.

Earlier this year, a federal judge ruled that Trump’s attorney, Evan Corcoran, must provide testimony before a federal grand jury in Washington, D.C., as part of an investigation into the former president’s retention of documents containing classified markings. Corcoran had previously declined to answer investigators’ questions regarding his conversations with Trump, citing attorney-client privilege. …

The special counsel team led by Jack Smith, appointed by U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland last November, made a request to D.C. District Chief Judge Beryl Howell, asking her to reject Evan Corcoran’s claims of attorney-client privilege and compel him to testify against his client, Donald Trump.

They argued that the attorney-client communications in question may have been used to facilitate criminal activity. In response, Judge Howell issued a secret order that partially granted the request. She ruled that the “crime-fraud exception” would be applied to Corcoran’s testimony but only on a specific set of questions, according to sources familiar with the matter.

Incidentally, the aforementioned Jack Smith, Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice — tasked with two criminal investigations involving Trump — has been under attack by the former president for months.

Trump recently blasted Smith in a series of Truth Social posts, calling him a “TRUMP Hating Special Prosecutor” who’s “working overtime on this treasonous quest.” Trump’s lawyers even asked Attorney General Merrick Garland for a meeting to discuss their perceived “unfair” treatment of Trump by Smith. That request was denied.

I’m not sure whether Trump thinks that’s a strategically shrewd move or not — the truth is he’s likely incapable of stopping himself — but I’m pretty sure it’s not the wisest tack to take. Nonetheless, human nature suggests Smith might now relish an indictment and conviction of the former president.

Weissman’s hypocritical suggestion that the American people “need to know whether this happened or not” is farcical on its face. If that’s the case, why don’t the American people need to know the exact same thing about the current president and his sloppy storage of a trove of classified documents, including in his garage next to his prized Corvette?

These questions are rhetorical, of course, because on the left, what’s good for Joe Biden is really bad for Donald Trump.

Moreover, why the rush to bring the case to the American public, as the MSNBC analyst claimed? The upcoming election, you say? Just one question: Why doesn’t that logic also apply to Biden? Again, rhetorical.

Look, I hate to go low [sarc — sometimes], but MSNBC is a clown network and Andrew Weissmann is a clown legal analyst. These people wouldn’t recognize objective reporting and legal analysis, let alone professionalism if it smacked them upside their TDS-riddled heads.

If Trump is indicted, according to Forbes, the DOJ has suggested in court filings it’s investigating whether Trump violated three federal statutes that concern the mishandling of government materials, including the Espionage Act, which prohibits sharing national defense information or “willfully retain[ing]” it and “fail[ing] to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it.”

There’s never a dull moment with anything related to Donald Trump, is there? And, Joe? He’s too busy falling down and getting lost on stage to stop lying about his retention of classified documents — and the Biden Family Business.

Weissman made many of the same comments in an interview with another TDS-riddled MSNBC host, Nicolle Wallace.

The Bottom Line

Whether one looks at the case involving Trump’s retention of classified documents, or that of Biden, one thing is abundantly clear: As with all cases involving Trump — or any Democrat — we’re looking at two sides of the same ugly hypocritical coin.