How to Fact Check Trump’s Lies about His Document Case

I just won the case in Florida. Everyone said that was the biggest case, that was the most difficult case. And I just won it.

Biden has a similar case, except much worse. I was protected under the Presidential Records Act. Biden wasn’t, because he wasn’t President at the time. And he had 50 years worth of documents, and they ruled that he was incompetent, and therefore he shouldn’t stand trial.

And I said, isn’t that something? He’s incompetent and he can’t stand trial — and yet, he can be President. Isn’t that nice? But they released him on the basis that–

[Goba attempts to interrupt]

— that he was incompetent. They said he had no memory, nice old guy, but he had no memory. Therefore we’re not gonna prosecute him.

I won the case. It got very little publicity. I didn’t notice ABC doing any publicity on it, George Slopodopoulos. I didn’t notice you do any publicity on it at all.

[Scott tries to interrupt]

I won the case, the biggest case. This is an attack on a political opponent. I have another one where I have a hostile judge

Scott: Sir, if you don’t mine, we have you for a limited time. I’d love to move onto a different topic.

Trump: No excuse me, you’re the one that held me up for 35 minutes.

The three women who attempted to interview Trump yesterday had an uneven performance. At times, their questioning flummoxed Trump. But in several cases, when he took over the interview, they just sat there silently as he lied at length.

A particularly egregious moment came in his false claims about the parallel investigations into his and President Biden’s retention of classified information. Trump told several lies without (successful) interruption. It was an unfortunate missed opportunity for correction, because Trump repeats these lies in his stump speech all the time, and it may be some time before someone competent has the ability to correct them in real time again.

Since Trump is going to keep telling the lie, I’d like to talk about how to fact check it.

Elements of the Offense

It starts with the elements of the offense — the things that prosecutors would have to prove if presenting this case to a jury. While Aileen Cannon has entertained doing fairly novel things with jury instructions, a model jury instruction for 18 USC 793(e), the statute considered with both men, includes the following five elements:

Did the defendant have possession of documents without authorization? The investigations into both Trump and Biden started when the Archives became aware that they had classified documents at their home. Contrary to what Trump said, the Presidential Records Act applies to both him and Biden, insofar as both were required to turn over any document that was a Presidential record when the Administration in which they served ended. That’s the basis of the proof that they had unauthorized possession of the documents that happened to be classified. That said, the PRA has an exception, however, for, “diaries, journals, or other personal notes serving as the functional equivalent of a diary,” which is relevant to why Biden wasn’t charged in two of four items Robert Hur considered charging seriously.

Trump has claimed that he had the ability to convert Presidential Records — even highly classified ones — into personal records, and thereby to take them home. But if this ever goes to trial, prosecutors would show that Trump first espoused that theory, which he got from non-lawyer Tom Fitton, in February 2022, long after the time he would have had to convert the documents to personal records.

Did the document in question relate to the national defense? The question of whether a document is National Defense Information or not is left to the jury to decide. That’s likely one reason why Jack Smith’s team included a bunch of highly classified documents among those charged. Generally, juries are asked to decide whether the government continues to take measures to keep a charged document secret, and whether it has to do with protecting the United States. A number of the documents charged against Trump pertain to either the US or other countries (like Iran’s) nuclear weapons programs.

Did the defendant have reason to believe the information could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation? Generally, prosecutors prove this by pointing to training materials cleared personnel get on classified information, and that’s one reason Jack Smith obtained the letters Trump’s White House sent out about classified information. With both Trump and Biden, however, prosecutors would also rely on their public comments talking about how important it is to protect classified information. In Trump’s case, prosecutors would or will use both the things he said to Mark Meadows’ ghost writer and Susie Wiles when he shared classified information, but also the things he said during the 2016 campaign — targeted at Hillary — about the import of protecting classified information.

Did he keep this document willfully? For both men, prosecutors would need to show that they realized they had classified documents, and then retained them. Given the extended effort to recover documents from Trump, it would be far easier to do for Trump than for Biden.

Did the defendant retain the above material and fail to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it? This is an element of the offense that Robert Hur misstated in his report (as I wrote here). It’s not enough to prove that someone willfully retained classified documents he wasn’t authorized to have, you also have to prove he failed to give them back. Normally, this is done (in part) by pointing to someone’s exit interview, when they are read out of their compartments and asked to give everything back. Because Presidents and Vice Presidents don’t have clearance and so aren’t read out of them, it is normally harder to prove that someone affirmatively refused to give documents back. But not in Trump’s case, which is what really distinguishes him from Biden, because the Archives and DOJ kept asking for the documents, including via subpoena, and Trump kept playing games to withhold them.

Theories of Biden Crime

There were four main documents or sets of documents for which Robert Hur considered charging Biden. They don’t include the 50 years of documents Trump described. Those were included in boxes of documents sent to universities; most were barely classified still if at all, and since Biden had given them away, it would be hard to prove he intentionally kept them.

Iran documents: The most sensitive documents found in the Biden investigation were some documents pertaining to Iran found in a box in a closet in Penn Center. Hur determined they had been sent to the Naval Observatory for a meeting Biden had with a bunch of Senators to suss out where they were on Obama’s Iran deal. They may never have gotten moved back to the White House, and were likely stuck in a box and moved to Penn Center by staffers when Biden moved out of the Naval Observatory. These documents were unquestionably Presidential records and National Defense information, but Hur had no evidence Biden knew they were there.

Afghan documents: Hur spent a lot of time trying to prove that, when Biden told his ghost writer during a meeting in his Virginia house on February 16, 2017 that, “I just found all this classified stuff downstairs,” he was referring to several dated folders pertaining to Afghanistan that were found in a ratty box in Biden’s garage in a consensual search. There were many problems with this theory: Hur couldn’t prove that the documents had ever been in the Virginia house (and so could have been downstairs when Biden made the comment); he couldn’t prove that Biden had personally put them in the box where they were found; he couldn’t come up with a compelling argument for why he would have retained them. When Hur included his language about what a forgetful old fogey Biden was, he did so to cover the possibility that Biden forgot he had the documents he hypothetically discovered in 2017 and so didn’t return them at that point, in 2017. But Hur would never have gotten close to where Biden would be relying on faulty memory, because Hur didn’t have very compelling evidence to prove his hypothesis about how the documents got into the garage in the first place, much less that Biden was involved in that process.

Afghan memo: Hur’s extended effort to make a case out of the Afghan documents was particularly difficult given that the best explanation for what Biden was referring to when mentioning classified documents was a 40-page handwritten memo Biden sent Obama in Thanksgiving 2009 to try to dissuade him from surging troops in Afghanistan. (The second best explanation for what Biden was referring to was a set of documents he had recently returned in 2017 when he made the comment.) That memo was found in a drawer in Biden’s office. Biden ultimately admitted to keeping it for posterity, meaning it might fall under the PRA exception for diaries. Because it was handwritten, it had no classification marks and couldn’t be proven to have obviously classified information, much less information still classified in 2023, when it was found.

Diaries: The FBI also found a bunch of notebooks that Biden called diaries and Hur called notebooks. When reading them to his ghost writer, Biden exhibited awareness they included sensitive information, which Hur argued was proof he knew they had classified information. Biden had a very good case to make that these fell under the PRA exception for diaries, as well as decades of precedent, including Ronald Reagan, that DOJ would not charge someone for classified information in his diaries. It would have been impossible to prove that Biden willfully retained something he knew he couldn’t retain, because Biden knew other Presidents and Vice Presidents hadn’t been prosecuted for doing the same exact thing.

There simply was no document or set of documents for which Hur could prove all the elements of offense.

Why You Can Charge Trump

As noted above, the thing that distinguishes Trump from Biden is that Biden found classified documents and invited the FBI to come look for more, making it virtually impossible to prove the final element of offense (the one Hur botched), that Biden refused to give them back.

Trump, by contrast, spent a full year refusing to give documents back, including after DOJ specifically subpoenaed him for documents with classification marks.

There were 32 documents charged against Trump. They include:

  • The document that Trump showed to Meadows’ ghost writers in 2021 and acknowledged was classified; that was returned to NARA in January 2022. You can charge this because prosecutors have a recording of Trump acknowledging it was classified months before he ultimately returned it.
  • Ten documents among those returned in response to a subpoena in June 2022. It’s unclear how Smith intends to prove that Trump knew he had these after he returned the first set of documents in 2021. But most if not all of them date to fall 2019, so he may know why Trump would have retained them. Matt Tait has argued at least some of them pertain to the US withdrawal from Turkey.
  • Ten documents found, in the August 2022 search, in the same box also containing bubble wrap and a Christmas pillow. Among the ten documents was one classified Formerly Restricted, meaning that, under the Atomic Energy Act, Trump could not have declassified it by himself.
  • Five more documents, also found in August 2022, that had been stored in boxes in the storage closet, including the one captured in a picture Walt Nauta took of documents that had spilled out of the boxes.
  • Three documents found during the Mar-a-Lago search in the blue leather bound box found in the closet in Trump’s office. At least a few of these likely pertain to Trump’s withdrawal from the Iran deal. These are likely documents that Trump referred to.

For every charged document besides the Iran one, then, prosecutors can show that Trump withheld the documents after he first returned documents in January 2021. Trump will certainly argue that he may not have known he had those specific documents. But Trump’s decision to end his sorting process in January 2021 and his efforts to thwart Evan Corcoran’s June 2022 search will go a long way to prove intent.

How Trump’s Case Got Dismissed

Trump falsely claimed he “won” his classified documents case. That’s false: Aileen Cannon dismissed it, just in time for the RNC. Her argument that Jack Smith was unconstitutionally appointed isn’t even the primary one that Trump’s attorneys were making: that Smith required Senate approval and that his funding was improper. Rather, she argued that Merrick Garland simply didn’t have the authority to appoint Smith in the way he did.

There are several reasons the distinction is important.

First, if SCOTUS upholds Cannon’s theory, then it will hold for all similar appointments. That extends unquestionably to Hur’s appointment, because like Smith he was a non-DOJ employee when appointed. It likely also extends to Alexander Smirnov, into whom most investigative steps occurred after David Weiss was appointed as a Special Counsel under the same terms as Smith and Hur, and whose alleged crimes happened somewhere besides Delaware. Whether it applies to Hunter Biden is a closer question: Judge Mark Scarsi seems poised to argue that since Weiss had already charged Hunter, his appointment is different (and given the way Scarsi has worked so far, I don’t rule out him trying to find a way to make this unappealable).

In other words, if the steps Jack Smith took after November 2022 were unconstitutional, then it means everything Hur did after January 2023 was also unconstitutional. If Trump “won,” then he needs to stop making any claims about Hur’s interview with Biden, because it was unconstitutional.

More importantly, not even Aileen Cannon has ruled that Trump didn’t knowingly and intentionally retain classified documents. All she has ruled is that if DOJ wants to charge him for it, they need to recreate the investigative steps completed since November 2022, under the review of US Attorney for Southern Florida Markenzy Lapointe.

image_print
25 replies
  1. SteveBev says:

    Excellent analysis as always

    Query typo –
    “That extends unquestioningly to Hur’s appointment” – unquestionably?

    Reply
    • harpie says:

      I think the “2021” is a typo here ?? :

      The document that Trump showed to Meadows’ ghost writers in 2021 and acknowledged was classified; that was returned to NARA in January 2021.

      added: a couple more “January 2021” ??

      Reply
      • SteveBev says:

        I think you are correct

        I add this only to further clarify the references you make

        Yes the 2nd reference to 2021 in that paragraph you quote should be 2022
        As per count 32 of superseding indictment reflecting date of return of document to NARA (1/17/2022)

        And consequential amendments to para beginning
        “For every charged document…”

        Reply
  2. OlivawTwist says:

    This thorough analysis also shows how difficult it is for a journalist interviewing Trump to engage with him in real time. No one can carry all of this in their head and be able to come up with a probing question or debunking observation. It takes him a moment to tell an outrageous lie and an essay like this to present the truth. So what is a journalist in a live interview to do? The Harris campaign is drawing attention for its use of “vibe checking” rather than fact checking, to get across rapidly that the things he says don’t need debunking because they are just, well, weird. And other attributes. Ultimately Trump’s speech is hostile to the point of demanding the interlocutor be either openly hostile in return, even to the point of risking violence. The self-respecting (liberal) press backs off from such hostility, giving Trump the ground. It is good to see the Harris campaign finding ways not to cede ground under this hostility (with Pete Buttigieg the supreme exemplar).

    Reply
    • harpie says:

      I agree…Harris and her campaign are proving to be very adept at this kind of riposte.
      And is that ever needed with this bunch!

      Reply
    • -mamake- says:

      Re: ‘…no one can…’ above.

      Well, I bet Medhi Hasan and Dr. Wheeler each could do this.
      But too true, there are not enough who can and would dare.
      I remember Yamiche Alcindor calling him out while standing in a room of journalist who didn’t have the ovarones that she has.

      Reply
    • Fancy Chicken says:

      Being schooled here and I have to credit the “Jack” podcast too, a journalist in an interview could simply say “Your case was dismissed on a technicality. You were not found innocent of hoarding secret documents.”

      And if you could get any more words in you could remind him it was a way out there ruling that would be going before the 9th appellate court and had a good chance of being overturned.

      I know a number of jurnos haunt this site and I hope they take advantage of all the primary work in research and presentation that Dr. Wheeler regularly hands them on a silver platter.

      Reply
  3. RitaRita says:

    “The documents case was dismissed on a technicality, wasn’t it? And isn’t it being appealed?, would have been a great follow up to his rant.

    And if the journalists wanted to address the fitness for office question that the documents case raises, they could have asked, “Sir, why did you keep sensitive documents in a bathroom and unsecured storage locker at Mar a Lago?”.

    It is the rapidfire delivery of so many false statements that is a barrier to adequate questioning by journalists. And their lack of knowledge of the details.

    Reply
  4. harpie says:

    !!!! Gershkovich, Whelan !!!! “and a number of Americans” !!!

    https://mastodon.social/@GottaLaff/112886934921996452

    JUST IN: “Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich, former US marine Paul Whelan and a number of Americans are expected to be released as part of a large-scale prisoner swap between the US and #Russia that is under way, according to a senior administration official.”

    Americans Gershkovich and Whelan expected to be freed in Russia prisoner swap, official says
    https://www.cnn.com/webview/world/live-news/prisoner-swap-russia-us/index.html
    Deva Lee, Antoinette Radford and Christian Edwards, CNN
    Updated 9:20 AM EDT, Thu August 1, 2024

    JUST IN: Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich, former US marine Paul Whelan and a number of Americans are expected to be released as part of a large-scale prisoner swap between the US and Russia that is underway, according to a senior administration official. […]

    WOW

    Reply
    • SteveBev says:

      Guardian reporting these nuggets
      “Many observers have linked the initial Gershkovich arrest to a Russian policy that amounts to hostage-taking, with a view to increasing pressure on western countries to release Russian spies, hackers and assassins.

      On Wednesday, two Russian deep-cover “illegal” spies arrested in Slovenia were tried in Ljubljana, sentenced to time served and ordered to be expelled from the country. A source with knowledge of the case told the Guardian the pair would be included in the exchange”
      https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/01/russia-prisoner-swap-evan-gershkovich-paul-whelan

      Reply
      • Savage Librarian says:

        That’s the 2nd mention of Slovenia I’ve seen recently. The other day I shared this article which discusses assorted dubious activities. There probably is no connection to the recent prisoner exchange. But it is interesting.

        “Trump Media Made Deal Involving GOP Donor James E. Davison”

        “The ultimate provider of the technology is a British firm called Perception Group, which has offices and engineers in Slovenia. The clients listed on its website are far less prominent than Trump’s social media site. They include a telecom in Slovenia, an entertainment service for crews on commercial ships and an Arabic-language streaming service in Sudan.”

        https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-media-truth-social-jedtec-james-davison-conflict-of-interest

        Reply
    • harpie says:

      And the Amazing Marcy, deservedly takes a bow:

      https://bsky.app/profile/emptywheel.bsky.social/post/3kynzqmuadp2l
      Aug 1, 2024 at 10:21 AM

      Another post I’m shamelessly sharing to mark Vladislav Klyushin’s inclusion in today’s prisoner swap. Here’s how the FBI caught him and his co-conspirator, former GRU hacker Ivan Ermakov — and how Mueller WOULD have proven the GRU hacked Podesta. [link]

      Links to:
      How the Government Proved Their Case against John Podesta’s Hacker
      April 20, 2023

      Reply
    • John Paul Jones says:

      It might mean that Putin thinks Trump can’t win. Remains to be seen who gets to stand in front of the cameras and announce the homecoming – and I don’t rule out Putin’s delaying it until mid-November – but if the exchange is going to happen in the next month, Biden takes the credit, not Trump.

      Reply
  5. Magbeth4 says:

    When Trump does an interview, he spews words like a cloud of tear gas, making it difficult, if impossible to pin him down on anything. He deflects, attacks, and badgers interviewers who are more used to being the intimidating actor in interviews, instead of the victim. Chyrons would help, with experts off screen to counter the lies. Ultimately, those who love him will not pay any attention to the truth.

    But if Trump refuses to answer questions as he did in the most recent interview with Black Journalists, only commentary and editorializing will act as a weapon for truth.

    Reply
  6. Sussex Trafalgar says:

    Outstanding research and analysis!

    I wish the US media and, specifically, the three women who were on the stage with Trump yesterday, had access to your research and analysis and, as importantly, would have had the courage to use such research and analysis to stop Trump’s diarrhea of lies spewing from his mouth. Interviewer Scott did show courage.

    Trump knows how the media producers inundate their interviewers with questions the producers want asked and answered in order to appear “fair and balanced” for the benefit of the network and their owners.

    Trump also knows interviewers have time limitations for their respective questions, thereby enabling Trump to “Gish-Gallop” and filibuster his way through those limited windows of allotted time.

    Thanks again for your continued outstanding research and analysis!

    Reply
    • Ithaqua0 says:

      My understanding is that the delay at the start was caused by the Trump team renegotiating the real-time fact-check provision, refusing to go on if the interviewers were allowed to fact-check him live.

      Reply
    • John Paul Jones says:

      The reporters have the same access that you and I do: through this magnificent blog. All they have to do is “read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest” the ration of intellectual substance here offered each and every day. How hard could it be?

      Reply
  7. scroogemcduck says:

    Excellent analysis, thank you.

    I read the transcript and a mental image of Trump saying that while at a drive-thru came to mind.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.