Legally, Jack Smith has Trump dead to rights.
Now we get to see whether facts and the law still matter.
Thursday night, we heard (at first via Trump himself) that a Florida grand jury convened by Special Counsel Jack Smith had returned an indictment in the Mar-a-Lago documents case. At first, most observers expected that we wouldn’t see the indictment itself until tomorrow, when Trump will be officially processed. But Friday the indictment was unsealed. In all there are 37 charges against Trump:
- 31 counts of “willful retention of national security information”. This is one fundamental crime applied to 31 documents, some classified at the very highest levels.
- one count of “conspiracy to obstruct justice”
- one count of “withholding a document or record”
- one count of “corruptly concealing a document or record”
- one count of “concealing a document in a federal investigation”
- one count of “scheme to conceal”
- one count of “false statements and representations”
Trump’s valet Walt Nauta is also named as a co-conspirator in counts 32-36, plus has his own count of “false statements and representations”.
If you add up the maximum sentences of all the charges, Trump could theoretically be sentenced to hundreds of years. By that’s a pointless exercise, because sentencing seldom works that way. It’s enough to point out that (if convicted and jailed) Trump, who will turn 77 on Wednesday, faces a strong likelihood of dying in prison.
Special Counsel Jack Smith made his first public appearance Friday. His statement was short and made a few simple points:
- Trump was indicted “by a grand jury of citizens in the Southern District of Florida”. In other words, while Trump may rail against Smith himself or Merrick Garland or President Biden, the ultimate decision was made by ordinary American citizens with no political ax to grind. Given that Trump carried Florida in 2016 and 2020, and that Republicans swept the state in 2022, it’s quite likely that many of the jurors are Republicans who have voted for Trump in the past. [1]
- If you want to “understand the scope and the gravity of the crimes charged”, you should read the indictment.
- “Our laws that protect national defense information are critical to the safety and security of the United States and they must be enforced. Violations of those laws put our country at risk.”
- “Adherence to the rule of law is a bedrock principle of the Department of Justice. And our nation’s commitment to the rule of law sets an example for the world. We have one set of laws in this country, and they apply to everyone.”
The narrative. Smith has written an indictment that is more revealing and readable than the 34-count indictment Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg produced for the hush-money case in April. It tells the following story:
While he was president, Trump collected souvenirs (“newspapers, press clippings, letters, notes, cards, photographs, official documents, and other materials”) that he jumbled together in cardboard bankers’ boxes (like the ones in my storage space). When he left the presidency, he had “scores” of those boxes transported from the White House to Mar-a-Lago.
Beginning in May, 2021, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) made a series of fruitless requests that Trump turn over the official documents, which belong to the US government. [2]
Meanwhile, stacks of Trump’s boxes were being shuttled from place to place inside Mar-a-Lago. In addition to being Trump’s residence, Mar-a-Lago was a club which (during the period in question) had more than 100 employees and tens of thousands of guests who were not cleared to see classified documents. Many of these locations (a ballroom, a bathroom) were highly insecure. On one occasion a stack of boxes tipped over, spilling the contents — including classified documents — onto the floor of a storage area.
In January of 2022, 15 boxes were shipped to NARA. These boxes included 197 classified documents, including 30 top secret documents, some of which had the additional markings of SCI (special compartmented information) and SAP (special access program), indicating that they were particularly sensitive, even compared to other top-secret documents. [3]
The indictment notes two occasions when Trump showed classified documents to someone without clearance to see them. In one conversation, which was taped, Trump showed a plan to invade “Country A” to an author, saying “When I was president I could have declassified it. … Now I can’t.”
NARA told the Department of Justice about these documents in February, 2022, and a criminal investigation was opened in March. A federal grand jury began investigating in April. On May 11, the grand jury subpoenaed “all documents with classification markings in the possession, custody, or control of TRUMP or The Office of Donald J. Trump”.
In conversations with two of his lawyers (one of whom appears to be Evan Corcoran), Trump suggested a variety of illegal strategies: simply not responding to the subpoena, saying there were no documents, or getting rid of the documents. He hinted that Corcoran should dispose of the documents for him, so that he could deny doing it. (These conversations are reminiscent of Michael Cohen’s descriptions of his conversations as Trump’s lawyer. “He doesn’t give you orders. He speaks in a code … much like a mobster would do.”)
When it became clear that Corcoran would not commit one of the crimes Trump was suggesting, Trump schemed with Nauta to circumvent Corcoran: He knew when and where Corcoran would search for documents subject to the subpoena, and he had Nauta move boxes around so that Corcoran wouldn’t find them.
After Corcoran found 35 classified documents, Trump made a nonverbal suggestion that Corcoran not turn them all over to the government.
He made a funny motion as though – well okay why don’t you take them with you to your hotel room and if there’s anything really bad in there, like, you know, pluck it out. And that was the motion that he made. He didn’t say that.
Corcoran had the 35 documents turned over, and drafted a certification (which he had another lawyer sign) saying that a diligent search had been done and these were all the documents the subpoena sought.
In July, the FBI acquired Mar-a-Lago surveillance video showing the boxes being moved. In August, they returned with a search warrant and found 102 classified documents Corcoran had missed — 27 from Trump’s office and 75 from the storage room Corcoran had searched. 17 of the documents were top secret.
The 31 documents in the indictment. In his public statements, Trump has made fanciful claims that he could declassify documents by thinking about them, or that there was a standing order declassifying any documents he took up to the White House residence. [4] As anyone who has ever had a security clearance should understand, these claims are not just false, they are absurd; the system couldn’t work that way. [5]
The indictment faces a problem that shows up whenever someone is prosecuted under the Espionage Act: It can’t just tell us what information the defendant revealed or risked, because then the indictment itself would reveal that information. (It’s a problem similar to one in the stoning scene from Life of Brian, where the priest can’t specify the accused’s blasphemy without himself saying the forbidden name of God.)
This problem will only get worse when the case goes to trial: The judge will need access to the 31 documents, and large parts of them (possibly redacted, with the judge’s approval) will have to be made available to Trump’s lawyers.
But the indictment includes only terse summaries. Document 17, for example, is top secret with something about its special markings redacted. (I’d guess the markings included a code word.) The summary says only: “Document dated January, 2020 concerning military capabilities of a foreign country.”
The indictment also lists the intelligence services that classified the documents, which includes all the major ones: CIA, NSA, DoD, NRO, and several others.
From the list, and the fact that the totals in the indictment indicate that not all the top-secret documents are listed, we can make two deductions:
- The most sensitive documents Trump compromised are not listed at all. So whatever you think after reading the listed summaries, the real security breach is worse than that.
- All the intelligence agencies would have liked to leave their documents off the list and out of the trial, but they must have gotten together and agreed that they would each pony up something.
Assessing the damage. From the early days of the Trump administration, it was clear that Mar-a-Lago posed a security problem. He had not even been in office for a month when North Korea launched a missile test while Trump was entertaining Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe at Mar-a-Lago (and making a profit off the entourages of both leaders).
In previous administrations, the leaders would be ushered away into the White House situation room or the nearest secure location by their aides. The documents and advice they receive at such moments are often some of the nation’s most closely guarded secrets. … As CNN reported and the Facebook photos later illustrated, Abe, Trump and their parties stayed at their tables as their aides passed them bits of paper, lighting them up with their mobile phones so they could be read, while the keyboard vocalist hired for the night sang on and Mar-a-Lago guests huddled around to get a better view.
So foreign intelligence services have had years to place agents at the club, as members, guests, employees, or even gate-crashers. It seems likely that some have succeeded. (Picture this cover story for a spy: Some foreign friend or business associate of Jared Kushner has a nephew who just flunked out of Florida Atlantic and needs a job.)
Friday night, MSNBC’s Alex Wagner and Chris Hayes interviewed former CIA Director John Brennan. Brennan made a few of the same points I just made, and then said this:
WAGNER: Republicans in Congress have sort of been hiding behind the fact that the intelligence community assessment regarding the implications, the fallout from the retention of these documents — that assessment is not complete. And they’re saying “We don’t know yet what damage, if any, has been done to national security.” You’re suggesting that that assessment is quite complicated. Is your outside guess that this is going to take quite some time longer? …
BRENNAN: Quite frankly, I don’t think that the intelligence community will ever be able to determine conclusively what might have been compromised.
In addition to whatever our enemies may have found out, Trump has done incalculable damage to our relationships with our allies. Allied intelligence services (say, Israel’s Mossad or the UK’s GCHQ) risk revealing their own spies and capabilities when they share secrets with the US. What might they start holding back, now that they have seen how badly the US protects such information?
Likely defenses. Normally, when we talk about an indicted person’s possible defenses, we mean legal defenses — arguments or testimony or evidence that can be presented in court to undermine the prosecution’s case and convince either the judge or the jury to let the defendant off.
That’s not what we’re going to see from Trump, though, because he’s just guilty. Smith has him dead to rights. If this were an ordinary trial, any competent lawyer would be negotiating a deal to minimize his jail time.
But Trump’s hopes lie outside the courtroom. If he can stall long enough, the 2024 election might happen before he’s convicted. And if the economy is in bad enough shape — say, because Trump’s friends in Russia and Saudi Arabia engineer a huge run-up in gas prices — he could win it. Then he could fire Smith and pull the plug on any federal prosecution. And if New York or Georgia find him guilty of something, he can hole up in the White House and dare them to come get him.
Trump’s previous run-ins with the legal system have proceeded on two tracks: an in-court track where his lawyers present theories that are bizarre but are at least coherent, and an in-public track where Trump presents wild, baseless, contradictory arguments that are persuasive to his followers, but would get his lawyers sanctioned if they brought them into court.
That split was clearest in the 55 lawsuits he filed (and lost all but one inconsequential one) to overturn his defeat in the 2020 election. In public, Trump and his lawyer Rudy Giuliani were alleging all kinds of fraud for which they had no evidence. In front of judges, however, Trump’s lawyers said nothing of the kind, instead arguing that technical details about how small numbers of ballots were handled should invalidate elections in entire states.
We are already seeing the same kind of split in this case. Trump and his followers howled with rage after the indictment came out, but none of what they’ve said challenges the evidence in the indictment or the laws he is accused of violating. Instead, Trump issues blanket denials (“I am an innocent man“), attacks Jack Smith (“deranged”, “lunatic”, and most bizarrely suggesting that Jack Smith is not his real name, whatever that is supposed to imply), engages in whataboutism regarding the Bidens or the Clintons, and says that indicting a leading presidential contender makes the US a “banana republic“. [6]
None of that can be brought into court, where his lawyers will have to stick to this case and the evidence against him.
Worst of all, Trump and many of his allies are broadly hinting at violence. On stage at Trump’s Saturday rally in Georgia, election-denier Kari Lake said:
I have a message tonight for Merrick Garland and Jack Smith and Joe Biden — and the guys back there in the fake news media, you should listen up as well, this one is for you. If you want to get to President Trump, you are going to have go through me, and you are going to have to go through 75 million Americans just like me. And I’m going to tell you, most of us are card-carrying members of the N.R.A. [7]
Needless to say, Trump’s lawyers would be disbarred if they went into court and threatened violence. They probably also will not mention obviously false interpretations of law, like the notion that the Presidential Records Act gives Trump the right to do “whatever I want” with highly classified documents [see endnote 2 again], or that he could declassify documents with his mind.
Trump also will not testify in his own defense, because Donald Trump is a terrible witness. He can lie proficiently when he monologues to a sympathetic crowd or is interviewed by a journalist he can talk over. But when he faces cross-examination, the penalty of perjury, and a judge with authority to hold him in contempt, he is unconvincing and likely to reveal (or even brag about) facts that hurt his defense.
A recent case in point is his deposition in the E. Jean Carroll lawsuit. (There is no Fifth Amendment right in civil lawsuits, so he had to submit to an interview.) Trump’s lawyers did not put him on the stand in his own defense, and his taped deposition was cited by Carroll’s lawyers, not Trump’s.
That will leave Trump’s legal team without much to argue, which is what happens when the evidence clearly says that a defendant is guilty.
The judge. Given that Trump’s main hope is to stall and hope that he (or some sympathetic Republican) wins the presidency in 2025, it was very disturbing to hear the case assigned to Judge Aileen Cannon, who was clearly in the tank for Trump when she oversaw his lawsuit challenging the FBI’s search of Mar-a-Lago and trying to get the seized documents back.
In issuing a series of rulings favorable to him, Judge Cannon, a Trump appointee, effectively disrupted the investigation until a conservative appeals court ruled she never had legitimate legal authority to intervene.
Her rulings were not just bad, they were outrageous. A three-judge panel of appeals court judges (two appointed by Trump) reversed her decisions unanimously.
The NYT went on to explain that the choice of Cannon was random, but weighted by various factors that made her a more likely choice than any of the six other eligible judges.
Cannon may be shy about showing such blatant favoritism again, but she doesn’t have to. She can just slow-walk the trial until after the 2024 election. If Republicans win, the case will likely go away.
People who are not worried about this possibility give two reasons for their calm:
- The same appeals court that reversed Cannon the first time might keep Cannon in line or sympathize with a DoJ motion to assign the case to a different judge.
- Jack Smith had to know Cannon was a possibility when he sought the indictment in Florida rather than DC. He must have had some reason to accept that risk.
We’ll see. The first hints will come tomorrow.
Endgame. But assume for a minute that a trial (either here or somewhere else) actually takes place and results in a prison sentence. Several people have remarked on the logistical difficulties of imprisoning an ex-president — like, does his secret service detail go to prison too?
But I don’t see Trump voluntarily submitting to demeaning restrictions, even if it’s just long-term house arrest. My opinion, based on very little, is that he’ll wind up in either Russia or Saudi Arabia.
People I’ve raised this possibility to are way too confident in the government’s ability to prevent it. “Take away his passport,” they say. But suppose Trump sees the writing on the wall while he’s still campaigning. He schedules a rally in Alaska, but his campaign plane passes the airport and just keeps flying towards Russia. What’s the government going to do, shoot it down?
[1] I wasn’t able to find the number of jurors on this specific grand jury, but by law a federal grand jury has 16-23 members, and 12 votes are required to approve an indictment. The exact number of votes for the Trump indictment is unknown, which is typical.
[2] Trump has tried to muddy up people’s understanding of the PRA, but it’s actually quite clear.
Upon the conclusion of a President’s term of office, or if a President serves consecutive terms upon the conclusion of the last term, the Archivist of the United States shall assume responsibility for the custody, control, and preservation of, and access to, the Presidential records of that President.
While he is still in office, a president can go back-and-forth with the Archives over what is a presidential or a personal record. But that negotiation ends when he leaves office. And much as I hate to agree with Bill Barr, he’s right about this:
Battle plans for an attack on another country or Defense Department documents about our capabilities are in no universe Donald J. Trump’s personal documents.
[3] I used to have a top-secret clearance, but never saw an SCI or SAP document. I know someone who was additionally cleared into at least one SCI compartment, but never saw an SAP document. I am personally appalled by the idea of such documents sitting in cardboard boxes in a Mar-a-Lago bathroom, and being moved about by Mar-a-Lago employees with no clearances whatsoever.
People with clearances — there are millions of us — routinely endure all sorts of hassles to secure their documents. For example, I used to have a safe in my office where the classified documents in my possession were supposed to be kept whenever I wasn’t using them. If I was reading a classified document, I couldn’t go to the bathroom without either taking a document with me, finding some other cleared person to babysit it, or putting it back in the safe. And I couldn’t write down the safe’s combination, because if I did, that note would become a classified document and belong inside the safe.
If you’ve jumped through such hoops for years, it is deeply offensive to read about Trump’s cavalier treatment of documents far more sensitive than anything I came into contact with.
[4] These defense are not just absurd (see next note), but they’re also largely irrelevant, because the Espionage Act is older than the classification system.
The World War One era law predates classification of documents but makes it a crime to willfully retain national defense information that could be useful to foreign adversaries.
A document’s classification is an indication of how useful it could be to foreign adversaries. But under the Espionage Act, the utility is the legal standard, not the classification.
[5] Trump talks as if pieces of paper are classified, and so their status can be changed by moving them from here to there. Actually, information is classified. So if a document is classified or declassified, all copies of it share the same status.
Suppose that a dozen people have copies of the same top-secret document. When Trump (while still president) looks at his copy and thinks “declassified” or takes it up to the White House residence, invoking his fantasized automatic declassification order, the other 11 copies would be instantaneously declassified as well, without their possessors being notified in any way. If any of them should happen to choose that moment to send a copy to The New York Times or the Russian embassy, that presumably would be OK.
It’s appalling that Trump would even imagine such a system. Documents are classified for reasons, which might include sources (i.e., protecting the lives of spies) or methods (i.e., not letting our enemies know how much our surveillance systems can see or what our analysts can deduce from that information). It would be ridiculously irresponsible to declassify a document without knowing those reasons and weighing the costs and benefits.
So the idea that anyone would declassify a document purely for personal convenience — because I want to read it here rather than there — should strike horror into the heart of any loyal American citizen.
[6] Apparently Scotland is a banana republic too, since Nicola Sturgeon, who was First Minister as recently as March, was arrested for questioning in a corruption investigation Sunday.
Current or former political leaders facing legal troubles is not not uncommon in countries that bear no resemblance to the stereotypical “banana republic” — a term which Latin Americans understandably find offensive. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has been charged. Former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi (who died this morning at 86) was convicted of several crimes. Former French Presidents Nicolas Sarkozy and Jacques Chirac have been convicted. Former German President Christian Wulff faced trial for corruption, but was acquitted.
Healthy democracies recognize that their laws apply even to leaders and former leaders.
[7] Lake’s numbers don’t work. The NRA has only 4.3 million members, so they can’t constitute “most” of the 74.2 million who voted for Trump in 2020.
The Weekly Sift 
Comments
Donald Trump’s best defense is a classic: when the constable blunders, the criminal goes free. The US creates classified documents by the millions, treats many like they were pieces of paper only, doesn’t track ‘em, can’t account for them and doesn’t diligently protect them (viz the young air national guardsman in the chain of communications of military and intelligence secrets). Worse, I’ll wager it doesn’t even know if Trump still has some, if they’re missing and what they may be.
This may sound more like a political defense, which it also is. A tenet of conservatism is that the government doesn’t do things well, but penalized others if they don’t. A election year is coming. This will be a lot weaker case to try than the splendid indictment would suggest.
It’s not a defense to say “but other people got away with it.” The fact that the government may have lost track of other classified documents has no bearing on what Trump did with the ones he took. Your proposed defense is no different from the “whatabout Obama/Biden/Hillary” one circulating on right-wing media.
The government is applying standards to Trump that it does not apply to itself. I see that as an over-arching issue, different than treating Hillary, Joe and Mike consistently with Donald. The Trump defense probably will have its pick of disaffected government employees who can describe standards and enforcement at length. It won’t take a particularly clever lawyer to get at least some of this into evidence for Florida jurors to ponder.
I hope I’m wrong.
Can you name a Democratic politician who stole top secret documents, lied about having them, and conspired to hide them? Trump has more in common with people like Jonathan Pollard, Chelsea Manning, and Reality Winner than he does with Biden or Pence.
If it’s a valid defense to say “but why aren’t you going after those other people,” that would apply to every other crime. The police don’t catch every criminal, so by your standard, the people they do catch shouldn’t be prosecuted.
“The government is applying standards to Trump that it does not apply to itself.”
This simply isn’t true. Anyone discovered to have treated the information contained in those documents the way Trump did would, and has been, prosecuted, and there’s a long list of people who are evidence of this.
Moreover, it’s not simply a matter of discovering he continued to possess this information after he was no longer entitled to, but the length of the efforts to which he went to prevent returning the documents, and the lies he told about them.
Finally, if there’s any individual who should be held to the highest standard of behavior regarding appreciating the sensitivity and value of this information, it’s a former POTUS. And that’s why he held onto these documents, lied about having them, and went to great lengths to prevent their recovery.
Given his relationships with the Saudis and Putin, and his need for money to cover his well-documented and substantial debts, he of all people appreciates the monetary value they have and that his fellow autocrats can afford his price. Does anyone seriously believe Donald Trump wouldn’t sell what he has simply because it would harm our country and our allies?
This isn’t a case of ticketing a speeder going 5 mph over while other similar speeders pass by. This is a case of arresting the one person with the ability to launch a rocket-fueled jet car down the middle of a rush-hour traffic jam and who decided to do so even after being told not to.
Hate motivated the actions taken against this orange monster before he was elected and after he was elected but hate turned him into a victim and he win every battle as the Durham report showed.
Now Hate brings hope of winning this new round, but instead makes sure he gets elected and Hilary Clinton and Joe Biden exposed to be prosecuted after GOP takes all three and wants revenge.
What we all should worry about is the constitution and equality in front of the law and how we can unite against communist China.
This invites Commie China to attack Taiwan before election is done.
As I recall, Trump got his butt kicked in the 2020 election. So no, he does not “win every battle”.
I’d suggest adding to Footnote [5] : When information is to be declassified, the process requires marking *every* applicable document (or applicable portions of documents) as declassified. This is important because it preserves trust in the classification markings. If one intelligence worker could tell another, “Oh, it’s OK to share that; the President said it’s now declassified”, those markings would cease to be authoritative, and we’d have a system that works by word-of-mouth. As fragile as our system is now, one that operated by folklore would be far worse.
Trump flying to Russia or Saudi Arabia and me never having to think about him would, IMO, be the optimal outcome of this whole fiasco.
I more or less agree. I’m sure MAGA folks would describe me as a Trump-hater, but don’t feel vindictive about him. I want to end the fascist threat. Punishing Trump is not a priority apart from that.
Very dangerous desire to subjectively desire an outcome for an American Citizen seeking an office of President, without due process of presumption of innocence, right to face accusers in a court of law there judged by a jury of peers of guilt or innocence beyond a reasonable doubt with then if found guilty punished according to our laws by a judge with the rights to appeal.
I can see your dislike coloring your view by it being our orange monster – but what if it would have been FDR or a future JFK ?
Taking away the right to vote from people because they seem inferior is what Hitler did to Jews and too many of the 173 countries and territories I have visited do today.
What’s next ? Body parts business of our deplorables following Communist China rule or making them disappear Pinochet style?
What if the monster gets 55% of the votes and a Trifecta to supporting putting this shoe on another foot ?
In case you haven’t noticed, Trump was only indicted. He will be accorded due process and will be allowed to contest the evidence against him before a jury votes on his guilt or innocence. It’s not taking any of that away if someone expresses the desire for him to flee to another country. No one is saying he should be locked up or executed without a trial.
Punishing Trump is required to make it clear to future despots-in-waiting that our country has the political and legal will to defend our democracy at all costs. If we fail to do that, then the seditious conspiracy he led will simply be, as Jamie Raskin called it, “a training exercise”, and someone less self-destructive and more competent will come along to do what Trump intended.
Now that he’s indicted, couldn’t they just order that he not leave the country and require that if he needs to fly for campaigning that he pay for a DoJ-operated plane to fly him?
I would expect him to have to turn over his passport, but with Judge Cannon, maybe he won’t have to. But without a passport, he’s just a private citizen and wouldn’t be able to deplane in a foreign country. I suppose he could request refugee status.
I have to admit, the prospect of seeing that kind of clown show would be almost as satisfying as him getting a long prison sentence.
Your hate runs deep – he has secret service detail and constitutional right to presumption of innocence – you would prefer lynching ?
Berlusconi 86 died
Started in construction Milano 1 & 2 cities from money given by Dad
Created media position for himself with private tv competing with monopoly
Took success into politics
Elite establishment weaponized government and sued him 20 times – he lost 1 small paid
Current alliance control of government was created by him
Sounds like Trump 🤔
When did I say he should be lynched? He’s entitled to due process, like everyone else. And it’s not unusual to confiscate passports from people who are considered flight risks.
I’m not sure why you’re bringing up Berlusconi. He’s often compared to Trump, so what? So is Jair Bolsonaro. From now on, every arrogant, ultra-nationalist, wannabe dictator will be compared to Trump.
If Trump flees the country, his most likely destination is the United Arab Emirates, where he owns property, and which has no extradition treaty with the U.S.
The real damage to our country at this point is and will continue to be the non-stop flood of lies and threats of retaliation and violence coming from his sycophants and co-conspirators in his coup attempt as they seek to insulate themselves from accountability by hiding behind ignorant, arrested-development mobs.
Already we have seen media outlets asking if the Special Prosecutor understands what he may be unleashing, as if whether our nation’s rule of law turns on the target’s ability to foment violent opposition to his being held accountable.
The hope is to threaten and exhaust our body politic so that when the time finally comes to hold this traitor and his accomplices accountable for their acts of treason against our nation in order that he retain the power of its Executive, there will not be enough energy and political will left to do so, but rather the the prevailing argument will be, “for the good of our country”, to leave him alone and move on.
I’m hard-pressed to think of a more despicable, contemptible enemy to the principles of the United States of America in our nation’s history. There isn’t a single quality of his being that can be characterized as positive. At every turn, he has refused to accept responsibility for his actions and to our country, and has repeatedly responded to attempts to hold him so not by apologizing and amending his ways, but by doubling down on them and becoming ever increasingly defiant.
At this point, there is no available recourse for dealing with him that will fill the glass of justice; options that might achieve that are beyond what a modern society permits. At the very least, we must all be willing to confront those who attempt to shield him from accountability by whatever means necessary and bring him to trial for what he’s done, no matter how hard that may be, and no matter how long it takes.
Trump has changed his story many times. He said he didn’t have the documents. He said he already declassified them. He said they were his personal property. He said he gave them all back. Etc.
I’d like to see a video that strings those statements together, so people who weren’t paying attention can see them all at once. Changing his story all the time really undermines his credibility.
Two laws: Presidents document act PDA ; and Espionage Act EA.
PDA the prosecutor did not pursue, knowing no case as Bill Clinton Sock-case proved the president has sole right to decide, so what he said did not say does not legally matter.
Using EA is another straw-man like in the earlier case to attach a novel theory based on law not used to sue.
Judge could even dismiss case under PDA law as law is law even if not sued based on such law , and once dismissed, the EA disappears as currently formulated.
That makes no sense. As Doug has explained, the president cannot unilaterally declassify information. There is a specific procedure for this. If Trump did in fact declassify everything he had, there would be records of this. All Trump has to do is produce those records and the case will be dismissed. How likely is it that those records exist and the DOJ is unaware of them?
Doug – does not write laws – or prosecute presidents.
Look for yourself at case when Bill Clinton was sued in Socks case – judge ruled clearly that any “rules” proposed by archives do not apply to the president – they apply to VP and Sec of State but not to Potus.
This must have been reason prosecutor did not use archive law in any of 37 indictments only used them as straw man to build up his case based on the old espionage act – if he would have built on espionage only he would not have been able to file at all
In common words he is trying “to say Trump tried to kill using a bike but as he had no bike he had to misappropriate one but because that bike is less than misdemeanor he could not show intent with a bike if there was no bike ….legally easy theory by judge to throw out
The “Clinton Socks Case” has no bearing on Trump’s indictment. You’re referring to Judicial Watch v. National Archives and Records Administration. Clinton had made audio tapes which were turned into a book. Supposedly, Clinton kept the tapes in a sock drawer. A conservative group, Judicial Watch, sued to have the tapes publicly released on the grounds that they were “presidential records.”
The case was dismissed as NARA lacks the authority to declare any item to be a “presidential record,” and had no authority to seize them or force Clinton to release them. This was a civil case which the government won. Trump’s citing of this case in his own defense is just more misdirection on his part, no different from “but Obama/Biden/Hillary took records” or “I can declassify anything with my mind.”
The relevant statute here is the Espionage Act. I would urge you to read the indictment as it’s written in clear, accessible text. So far, I have not heard any coherent or substantive defenses of Trump’s actions. If he’s not convicted, it won’t be because the government lacks the authority or evidence – it will be because judge Cannon sabotages the case or a MAGA gets on the jury and engages in nullification.
I have read and said if you read what I said none of 37 charges are based on that only refers to them as justification fof criminal suit regarding espionage where they are supposed to be giving motive for espionage but gives instead defenses opportunity to use them to drag in Hillary and VP Biden similar acts thus argued selective prosecution
So we’ll just ignore the fact that what Clinton and Biden did is completely different from what Trump did, and just focus on “documents.”
Motive is not evidence. While motive goes toward state of mind and intent, no one can be convicted of a “motive.” It doesn’t matter if Trump wanted to use the documents as bird cage liners. He wasn’t supposed to have them and is in trouble for not returning them and taking steps to conceal them. Since neither Biden nor Clinton did that, it’s not “selective prosecution” to hold Trump accountable.
I rest my case – your motivation seems to be what you wish – mine is only legal strategy , time will tell but it was 2012, Judicial Watch tried to force former President Bill Clinton to turn over dozens of interview tapes he kept from his presidency. Clinton claimed the tapes were personal and the court sided with him. Judge Amy Berman Jackson, an appointee of President Barack Obama, went so far as to argue that the court had no way to second-guess a president’s assertion of what is and isn’t personal.
However, the charges here sidestep that issue and instead use a clause in the Espionage Act that criminalizes a failure to hand over national defense information.
The indictment further alleges that Trump and staffer Nauta hid some documents when the government demanded them through a subpoena.
The alleged Espionage Act violations impose a high burden of proof and raise the question of whether the statute should have been applied to begin with and, if not, whether the underlying investigation should serve as a basis for obstruction charges, and “The key legal issue here is the interplay between the Presidential Records Act and the Espionage Act,” said Will Scharf, a former federal prosecutor. “That’s a totally novel legal issue,” Scharf said. “It’s never been tested before.
The Espionage Act has never been used to prosecute in this sort of a setting.” Many lawyers believe the Espionage Act can’t be used this way because it wasn’t meant to be used in such a fashion.
Before 1978, former presidents owned all documents from their presidencies, including any national defense information.
There’s never been any suggestion that their holding on to such documents violated the Espionage Act. “Even if any President declassified his presidential records and took them when he left office, he can still now get charged under Espionage Act…that theory will not be accepted with Supreme Court,”
Much of the indictment thus rests on the allegation that Trump kept national defense documents “willfully”—with criminal intent, but the indictment shows no such proof of intent.
The result of this indictment will have opposite result and help Trump get elected and then pardon himself and time for revenge and in the meantime China attacks Taiwan 🤔
The current law was passed in response to Nixon’s abuses. Prior to that, you’re correct, no one cared what a president took with him. If you don’t think the law is necessary, write your congressman and ask him to change it. But that doesn’t exonerate Trump for violations under the current law. “This law shouldn’t exist” isn’t a defense.
As I explained to the other guy, Judicial Watch vs. NARA was a civil case that the government won, because NARA has no authority to control personal records the president creates, or to require him to turn them over to another private party. Trump concealed documents belonging to the government that he had no right to keep. So it’s apples and oranges.
Law is law but so is constitution and presumption of innocence even for our orange monster
When did I say he’s not entitled to due process?
I note you acknowledge Trump is innocent!
Until proven guilty or innocent in a court of law by a jury of his peers!
Correct. All defendants enter court with the presumption of innocence. The prosecution must present evidence to prove guilt. However, a defendant isn’t found “innocent,” the verdict is either “guilty” or “not guilty.”
Fully agree!
Wish this fact was reported by spinners once known as journalists!
Wish these and other laws plus DOJ resources were used equally regardless of political affiliation!
Nixon was guilty ; as was Bill Clinton of lying; and why are we now not seeing hearing Biden tapes of Burisma ; and who allowed Hillary Clinton to not be indicted of using private server!
The equal protection of the law and DOJ using that power is more important – than any of these clowns – Nixon Clinton Bush Biden Trump – Bush W is a war criminal!
2024 election must be flawlessly fair letting legal voters decide !!!
I’m not seeing anyone saying Trump is guilty, at least not in the sense where he should just go to prison without a trial.
The reason those other people weren’t prosecuted:
Nixon – pardoned by President Ford
Clinton – impeached but not removed from office
Biden – the “tapes of Burisma” might not even exist, so they can’t be released.
Hillary – using a private server wasn’t illegal. She got the idea from her predecessor, Colin Powell.
What Trump did goes far beyond this, although I’m sure his lawyers will try the “selective prosecution” argument, and it wouldn’t surprise me if Judge Cannon tosses the case on that basis. If that happens, Smith will just re-file in New Jersey.
FBI report in the hands of them for 4 years states about Burisma tapes and that is probable cause!
The sharing of data by Hillary or if also by Powell both probable cause!
Interesting you would get them you like free out of jail card but lynch the ones you don’t like
I favor equal Justice for all and probable cause must appoint special counsel to investigate and indict regardless of political affiliation
W why no comment ? He should be tried for knowingly without cause attacking Iraq and Hillary supported him
If you think what Hillary did is equivalent to what Trump did, there’s no point in continuing. And there may not be any Burisma tapes. All we have is Rep. Comer’s word that there is an “informant” they can’t locate.
Trump is found liable for sexually assaulting a woman, yet he’s still a candidate for President. Al Franken had a 30 year old photo of him fake-groping a woman’s breasts, and he was forced to resign from the Senate. It sounds like you just want to make excuses for Trump.
Trump is inducted fine let’s see court results
It “could be” that Hillary is an Angel and Hunter a choir boy and the big guy was god himself – but probably cause rules fair indictments
Today it was revealed Fauchi and Connelly lies to congress 2021 about money going to Wuhan funding gain of function – I guess two more choir boys according to you
Trackbacks
[…] This week’s featured post is “The Mar-a-Lago Documents Indictment“. […]
[…] The Mar-a-Lago Documents Indictment […]