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.

87 replies
  1. SteveBev says:

    Excellent analysis as always

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

    • 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” ??

      • 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…”

  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).

    • 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!

    • -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.

        • Desidero says:

          It’s one thing to have the facts, another to get them out effectively while someone’s blathering at you (plus shifting tactics)
          Someone suggested Trump seemed to be in a lower (dementiad?) state which may have allowed some questions to cut through plus possibly some of his self-owns (Marcy notes these my not be mistakes as much as “new normal” that the press let’s him get away with)

    • 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.

      • bloopie2 says:

        Anyone got a “cheat sheet” of canned, one-sentence questions/answers for those topics (like this one) most likely to come up when Trump-ing? A good reporter would have that in hand, no?

        • OlivawTwist says:

          Prepared responses would be an improvement over the lazy technique of many journalists. Yet Trump’s superpower is coming up with an unlimited number of off-the-wall scandalous lies and insinuations that no sane person would be prepared for. “She became black”? Who would expect that?

    • P-villain says:

      I don’t doubt that Buttigieg has been through the crucible throughout his life, due to his sexual orientation. Good practice for standing up to bullies.

    • Dreadnought says:

      Stick to the first lie until it is resolved. Trump called the first question rude, which is a claim to his internal state. Can’t do anything about that. However, Trump said the meeting was delayed because of NABJ technical difficulties, when the meeting was actually delayed because Trump argued with the NABJ for at least 30 minutes. He didn’t want his statements fact-checked. This should have been the sole discussion by the NABJ until reality is acknowledged by Trump, Trump declares he will not talk about it, or Trump walks out. “Flees the interview.” Yes, nothing of larger import is addressed, but it does establish he cannot dominate even a small thing, such as why a meeting was delayed. It is a legitimate exposure because Trump introduced the subject of delay for his advantage, and attached the lie to that subject. Sticking to the first lie until it is resolved is also the way to deal with a gish gallop.

      I realize journalists want to talk about important things, but Trump is a sociopath. He shouldn’t even be interviewed unless you are prepared to deal with a sociopath, and conduct yourself accordingly. A sociopath leaves no other choice. Decent people are required to use techniques directed at the sociopathy.

      We did learn that an interview with Trump is likely to be canceled by Trump’s team when Project 2025 is mentioned.

      • DestroyR_44 says:

        Oh wow, thank you and amen. EXACTLY!! Sadly, tfg and his handlers/enablers know they can’t EVER agree to be questioned by those (“journalists” /interviewers) who will do, say, and act what we are saying here. -Just joined mastodon. You are the 2nd person I’ve replied to. Thanks again for your very intelligent comment.

        [Welcome to emptywheel. Please use the SAME USERNAME and email address each time you comment so that community members get to know you. See your comment at 7:56 am for further elaboration. /~Rayne]

    • Theseus99 says:

      You don’t need a canned response or any similar crutch. All you need is a knowledge of the facts and the willingness to stand up for them: “Mr Trump, you’re lying again, and if you don’t stop lying, we are going to terminate this interview.”

      • DestroyR_44 says:

        EXACTLY!!, THESEUS99! I mean I love emptywheel, but I clicked on her title “How to fact-check Trump’s lies” b/c she incl’d an excerpt from his NABJ interview – noting the failed interruptions especially. And so emptywheel being emptywheel she wrote a complete book on it. No! I expected her to tell me ideas like YOU simply stated here: To ANY (real) interviewer: Stop him in his lying-ass tracks! Stop FEARING authority! Talk normal! Like to your friends. You wouldn’t allow THEM to get away with such BS! (Hello, THESEUS99, I just joined mastodon.social and this is my first reply, comment, post, or whatever they call it on this social media site 😹

        [Welcome to emptywheel. Please use the SAME USERNAME and email address each time you comment so that community members get to know you. You attempted to publish this under what appeared to be your real name; I have edited it this one time to match the username on your second comment. Use that name on all future comments. Please also avoid using emojis as they are not searchable. Emoticons are acceptable. /~Rayne]

    • pluralist says:

      It takes him a moment to tell an outrageous lie and an essay like this to present the truth.

      There’s a convenient shorthand for this: Brandolini’s Law¹. Not surprisingly, it arises from a reaction to Berlusconi, who parallels Trump in many ways. Thanks to Radley Balko for introducing me to it.
      ¹specifically formulated as: “The amount of energy needed to refute bullsh*t is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.”

    • Joe Raycraft says:

      This, ‘quality’ of Trumps is really an important thing to unfold, because he is at his ‘best’ when he is attacking someone.
      I think Waltz represents the strongest representation of this quality of not ceding the opening point/lie. Trump always takes the first psychological space at the beginning of the engagement. He tries to manipulate the first group of thoughts you have.
      In the case of the NABJ interviewers he pushed the argument posed by the first set of questions back with his typical personal attacks and whatever lie comes through his mind first. He is a master of this and will always take that step forward.
      This forum is obviously full of people who recognize this behavior and know how to shut it down. I think that this quality with Waltz’s particular flavor is best to carry the day.
      The discussion of Trumps ability to argue this way and how to stuff it is refreshing, thank you to all on here, the question of him, will be a important piece of how to shore up the system.
      The attacks on Secretary Buttigieg, and Senator Shapiro will be obvious and vile and predictable, Waltz has a particular demographic makeup which blunts the usual tropes. He is a Veteran, former football coach, teacher, as much as I hate to have to acknowledge the unoriginal macho energy, Waltz covers basic manliness criteria. I agree Secretary Pete is good on the counter attack. All we will hear about him until november will be about his sexuality. He is obviously way more of a man, in my personal conception of a man than Trump could ever hope to be, and the people who care about his sexuality don’t make a huge group of votes in the long run. I guess some part of me would like to not have to hear the torrent of stupidity which will come at Secretary Buttigieg.
      The lies are fairly predictable, his attacks are limited, there is a counter to this laid out above, the delivery is crucial, I am grateful to know that there is a solid pool of counter punchers to choose from.

  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.

  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

    • Rayne says:

      Though grateful for the prisoners’ release, I think this is Vlad’s approach to changing the subject.

      • FL Resister says:

        Perhaps part of it is Vlad letting his wards know that his help is not available for past favors.

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        It would be a nice head fake, to distract from his continuing to support the anarchist and insurrectionist American right. Anything that makes it less able to function domestically and internationally is a good thing for him.

    • 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

      • 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

      • thequickbrownfox says:

        It is long past time for the President to publicly state that it is not safe to go to Russia. It needs to be plainly stated “Americans, PLEASE, under no circumstances, enter Russia, for any reason. Do not go to visit a dear, dying relative. Do not go to attend the wedding of a dear friend, or the birth of a godchild. Do not go for any business reason, including as a reporter. Do not go as a teacher or as an athlete. If you do so, you may be imprisoned and held for ransom for years.”

        Namby-pamby diplomatic cautions are obviously not enough, because Americans continue to do it. The stupidity burns……

        • P J Evans says:

          The State Department does that. They can’t prevent people from going, but they do tell people what places are unsafe.

    • 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

    • 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.

      • Molly Pitcher says:

        The exchange is happening now, four Americans are in US custody. Around 20 people are involved in the exchange.

      • Rugger_9 says:

        That is an explanation that makes sense, since the FSB has been doing its level best to this point to select Convict-1. Harris still has her convention bump and months of Convict-1, Vance and the rest of the minions stepping on rakes to move the needle some more.

        Scaramucci was floating the idea that Convict-1 would drop out as Biden did, but there is zero chance that occurs, IMHO. Getting back to the WH is the only way Convict-1 stays out of jail since he will have no other leverage to get pardons and other considerations.

        I would say it’s more likely that Vance gets dumped if he continues the cat lady approach because even many MAGAs think of him as Shillbilly. That event would create all sorts of havoc since there is no mechanism to replace Vance, Thiel and his money won’t like it, and the ballot submission deadlines are approaching fast.

    • harpie says:

      Statement by President Joe Biden on Securing the Release of Americans Detained in Russia https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/08/01/statement-by-president-joe-biden-on-securing-the-release-of-americans-detained-in-russia/ August 01, 2024

      Today, three American citizens and one American green-card holder who were unjustly imprisoned in Russia are finally coming home: Paul Whelan, Evan Gershkovich, Alsu Kurmasheva, and Vladimir Kara-Murza.

      The deal that secured their freedom was a feat of diplomacy. All told, we’ve negotiated the release of 16 people from Russia—including five Germans and seven Russian citizens who were political prisoners in their own country. Some of these women and men have been unjustly held for years. All have endured unimaginable suffering and uncertainty. Today, their agony is over.

      I am grateful to our Allies who stood with us throughout tough, complex negotiations to achieve this outcome— including Germany, Poland, Slovenia, Norway, and Turkey. This is a powerful example of why it’s vital to have friends in this world whom you can trust and depend upon. Our alliances make Americans safer. […]

      SIXTEEN people!
      Why it’s VITAL to have friends in this world!

  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.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Trump is always a bully. He wants to show dominance in order to avoid consequences and questioning, to get his way. If he’s never going to cooperate, perhaps the few interviewers who get the chance could point out forcefully, but calmly, that he’s not cooperating or answering the questions, but using an interview to lie – and end it before Trump does.

        • Clare Kelly says:

          If by “light up” you mean he’d enjoy it, I disagree.

          ‘He alone’ must end interviews.

          If the hosts end it, it’s more respectful to the audience who shouldn’t have to endure Gish galloping.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          To Clare Kelly, he wouldn’t enjoy it, it would enrage him. All the more so because, in this instance, it would come from a woman of color. But you do it to protect journalism, by denying Trump success at destroying it, if only on one occasion.

      • John Lehman says:

        “Trump is always a bully. He wants to show dominance in order to avoid consequences and questioning, to get his way.”…

        Ya,…we know the type…
        Go Kamala

  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!

    • 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.

    • 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?

      • Sussex Trafalgar says:

        I concur. And it shouldn’t be hard.

        And the reporters are not doing it; consequently, are the reporters too inexperienced to follow EW, or are their supervisors, producers, executives, or ownership preventing them from using it?

  7. DChom123 says:

    In Trump’s case, a truth check might prove useful. Perhaps a cricket emoji or some such.

    [Welcome back to emptywheel. Please use the SAME USERNAME and email address each time you comment so that community members get to know you. You attempted to publish this as “DC123”; this is the second comment edited on the same day to match your established site standard-compliant username. Please make a note of it and check your browser’s cache and autofill. Future username mismatches may be held in Pending by auto-moderation. /~Rayne]

  8. 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.

  9. CovariantTensor says:

    On almost every occasion when talking about the docs case, Trump asserts the Presidential Records Act gave him the authority to take whatever the hell he wanted, when in fact it says almost the exact opposite. Couldn’t the media do a global fact check on this? Could not the “Paper of Record” somehow squeeze an article about the PRA onto the front page?

    In addition to crimes related to the Espionage Act, Trump committed, and was presumably charged with, other crimes such as attempting to tamper with evidence that was under subpoena, which neither Biden nor Pence did.

  10. Marc in Denver says:

    It’s a Gish gallop. https:/ /en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop #Countering_the_Gish_gallop [spaces added]

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      AKA, an expression of verbal diarrhea flooding the zone with shit, applied to derail the form and substance of debate. To make people stupid and deprive them of information needed to be a citizen.

  11. c-i-v-i-l says:

    Although this has no hope of becoming law in this Congress, Schumer and other Senate Democrats just introduced some interesting legislation, the No Kings Act.

    The No Kings Act would:

    Reaffirm that Presidents and Vice Presidents do not have immunity for actions that violate U.S. criminal law. No President or Vice President (former or sitting) would be entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution for actions that violate the criminal laws of the United States. The bill would clarify that Congress, not the Supreme Court, determines to whom federal criminal laws may be applied.
    Remove the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction for all actions challenging the constitutionality of this legislation. The bill would allow Presidents and Vice Presidents to challenge the constitutionality of the No Kings Act in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Any appeal would be handled by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Using the Exceptions Clause of Article III of the Constitution, Congress would preclude the Supreme Court from hearing any appeals to these challenges. It would further remove the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction to interfere with any criminal proceedings involving Presidents or Vice Presidents on the basis that an alleged criminal act was an official action.
    Establish additional jurisdictional and procedural guardrails. The bill would allow the United States to bring criminal actions against a President or Vice President in any applicable district court or the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. It would also create a presumption of constitutionality for the No Kings Act unless a party establishes its unconstitutionality with clear and convincing evidence. Lastly, the bill would create statutes of limitations of 180 days for facial constitutional challenges and 90 days for as-applied constitutional challenges.

    https://www.democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/following-historic-and-dangerous-trump-immunity-ruling-leader-schumer-led-34-democratic-senators-in-launching-no-kings-act-to-crack-down-on-dangerous-precedent_to-eliminate-immunity-for-presidents–vps-crimes-and-tap-into-congress-constitutional-authority-to-restrict-judiciary-overreach

    Bill text:
    https://www.democrats.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/SIL24569.pdf

    • Clare Kelly says:

      Thanks!

      Also, I’m hoping a journalist immediately queries the ‘not important’ Senator JD Vance, and his fellow ‘family first’ fabulists.

      “Senate GOP blocks bipartisan bill to expand child tax credit”

      [snip]

      “Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) teed up the bill for a vote before the Senate adjourned last week.

      “Senate Republicans love to talk about how they are the party of family and business. So it’s very odd to see them come out so aggressively against expanding the child tax credit and rewarding business with the [research and development] tax credit,” Schumer said on the floor of the chamber.”

      Tobias Burns
      The Hill
      08/01/24 2:50 PM ET
      https://thehill.com/business/4805927-senate-republicans-block-child-tax-credit-bill/

      • c-i-v-i-l says:

        Agreed that Vance and others should be questioned. They’re pro-natalist (at least for white people), but anti-family-well-being.

      • Matt Foley says:

        I’m betting that Shady Vance supports antivax parents.
        That’s MAGA Christian pro life for ya.

    • GlennDexter says:

      There’s a good chance it becomes law if Harris wins the November election. I think the GOP wouldn’t want her to have absolute immunity.

  12. Joe Stewart says:

    “… recreate the investigative steps….” Sounds expensive, time consuming, and intrusive upon those being investigated, but surely doable, correct? Would the resulting indictment and trial then return to Cannon or be just another trial allocated randomly?

    [Welcome back to emptywheel. Please use the same username and email address each time you comment so that community members get to know you. You attempted to publish this comment as “JoeStewart”; I have edited it to match your established username. The space between first and last name matters. I’ve also edited your email address to match that used on previous comments; please check your browser’s cache and autofill. /~Rayne]

  13. Matt Foley says:

    Another beauty from Trump:
    “Nobody died on January 6. You do know that….They shot a young lady in the face who was protesting.”

    The young lady’s name was Ashli Babbitt. “They” shot her in the shoulder, not in the face.

    World’s Greatest Memory. Yup.

    • Sherrie H says:

      That was an odd moment, “nobody died? You were just talking about one of the deaths!” The “why weren’t the people who destroyed Portland/Minneapolis/etc prosecuted?” was another one. I dunno, man, who was in charge during this lawless time where several US cities were supposedly destroyed? Why not ask him?

      • c-i-v-i-l says:

        And plenty of people who participated in city protests were prosecuted. But they were mostly prosecuted by states, not the federal government, as they weren’t on federal property.

      • thequickbrownfox says:

        For the record, Portland wasn’t destroyed. The protests were basically in a 4 square block area, and were mostly peaceful, at least until Trump’s goons arrived in full military gear and began shooting people with rubber bullets, and even forcing folks into vehicles a couple of blocks from the disturbances.

        And, also for the record, the people that caused the most visible problem were what is known as the ‘Black Block’. They show at every demonstration with the intent to raise hell and break things, and there are maybe 100 of them, with maybe a couple hundred that are ‘along for the ride’, and there to see what happens but not engaging in any destruction. The BB are anarchists, not believers in democracy. It’s been the pattern in Portland for a couple of decades.

        • Yohei1972 says:

          Thank you for the extra context on the BB types.

          The “Portland is on fire” rhetoric during the protests was silly.

        • Rayne says:

          Portland is on fire” is propaganda, deliberately pushed in order to support whatever it was unlawfully appointed Acting United States Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf was supposed to do.

  14. bloopie2 says:

    Most politicians who reach high levels are excellent off-the-cuff talkers, convincers, quick with a retort. It’s part of the skill set.

    But that’s not the case with reporters, is it? They have a different skill set. So, why do we expect them to be able to effectively debate an experienced politician?

    If we take the microphones away from all those reporters who can’t do what we are asking, what small percentage would be left?

    Can we teach that skill? Maybe not. Here’s an example. Lawyers who are excellent working behind their desks are often flops in the courtroom or even in negotiations. Again, it’s a different skill set. Some can learn, others cannot.

    Can we teach the reporters? Maybe we need to do that—confrontational journalism seems to be the norm now, and also the way to get clicks. But who teaches reporters these days?

    • c-i-v-i-l says:

      It’s not a reporter’s job to debate an interviewee. But it is the reporter’s job to be an effective interviewer. It’s not hard to learn to listen to an answer, note that the answer isn’t addressing the question, and then point that out and ask the question again, perhaps even cutting off the off-topic answer. It isn’t so hard to learn to ask good follow-up questions (at least if you understand the topic you first asked about), and even if it were, it’s part of what needs to be learned. Ditto for correcting false statements. And with an interviewee who’s been publicly interviewed many times, you know going into the interview whether this person is someone who is generally on- or off-topic (and if the latter, whether there are topics that the person likes to substitute), generally honest or dishonest, … and you can be prepared for interviewing that kind of person. With someone who gives a lot of speeches, you can prepare a short response if they’re known to repeat the same false claims across multiple speeches. These skills can be learned (I say this as someone who has interviewed people for qualitative research projects, though that’s a different kind of work), and if they’re not being taught these skills in journalism skills, then those schools are remiss.

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        Yes. Experienced politicians know how to work a question, a reporter, or a room full of them. It’s the reporter’s job to anticipate and prepare for that, to deal with non-answers, distractions, lies by omission and commission, and attacking the reporter. The techniques to avoid truthful answers are legion, and Trump uses most of them.

        Yes, it might make Trump refuse to be interviewed by good reporters again. If so, then that’s the story, as is Trump’s refusal to honestly answer important questions or to respond to them with lies. Media have to be willing to say that, too. When it comes to Trump and many others in power, it often self-censors and refuses to do that.

    • Rayne says:

      Much of the problem isn’t on us. It’s on J-schools to teach better skills, it’s on employers to assure the right journalists are assigned to interviews, their journalists are trained on the job if necessary, and corrective action taken to improve outcomes.

      It’s on us to be informed news consumers to acquire and maintain a higher level of media literacy, and demand better performance from the media. And yes, we should expect better interviewing skills because it’s part of reporters’ jobs to obtain facts to inform the public. Not debate but pursuit of the facts.

      • The Old Redneck says:

        Reporters can learn these skills. Many do, and they question their interview subjects effectively. The late Tim Russert and some of the 60 Minutes crew are some examples.

        The problem is that some of this is complicated stuff. You have to know something to understand that Judge Cannon did not dismiss the case on the merits, that it could be brought again by a US attorney, etc. That’s where a lot of reporters fall down – they just don’t their subject matter well enough. When Trump turns on the verbal firehose, they don’t have the expertise to dig deep and call him on his bullshit. And Trump knows it.

        • Rayne says:

          That’s both a problem of the news organization and a problem for individual reporters. If your beat is the White House and that’s all you cover, you’d better know it because your job could be easily filled by others — and should be when you fail to do your job at better than competitors’ level.

          Look at Marcy for example. Why is this one person running an independent website who didn’t get a J-school degree able to beat the pants off folks who got J-school degrees, obtained jobs with well-noted organizations, and only have to focus on one beat? There are no excuses.

        • Clare Kelly says:

          “they just don’t their subject matter well enough”

          Journalism 101:
          1. Embrace the Power of Research

          Journalism is built on a foundation of thorough research. Before diving into any story, take the time to gather as much information as possible. Utilize credible sources, conduct interviews, and cross-reference your findings. The more you know about your subject matter, the better equipped you’ll be to present accurate and engaging content to your audience.

          https://www.yellowbrick.co/blog/journalism/mastering-journalism-101-essential-tips-and-techniques

          September 28, 2021
          In depth: SPJ’s Code of Ethics
          https://ethicscentral.org/ethicscode/

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Not many here would consider Tim Russert an example of effective, challenging journalism that holds power to account. Neither Russert nor his Mini-Me, Chuck Todd, did much of that. Their versions of MTP more often did the opposite.

          As for complicated stuff, a lot of professions involve it. Commenters here, for example, include MDs, lawyers, architects, engineers, psychologists, and academic researchers. They all had to master the knowledge and complexities of their respective work. Same for journalists.

  15. Davekro1 says:

    Long time reader. This is the first that I have jumped out of my seat needing to comment.

    “Look at Marcy for example. Why is this one person running an independent website who didn’t get a J-school degree able to beat the pants off folks who got J-school degrees, obtained jobs with well-noted organizations, and only have to focus on one beat? There are no excuses.”

    Maybe off-topic slightly, but in real time interviews (or debates) Secretary Buttegeig is by far is the best in-the-moment corrector of non-answers, BS and outright lies that there is. Even better, of course, he proves very knowledgeable, always masterfully prepared with data and facts to refute the fire hoses of malarkey being spewed into the airwaves and ethers. I am very impressed that he has the huge ability to not be talked over, without raising his voice or appearing confrontational. IMHO, Mayor Pete has a rare gift besides being extremely intelligent, of having detailed knowledge across so many topics, and a seeming innate communications gift. I am blown away by the compassion, unflappable eye on the actual topic being assailed, and a way to frame and explain complex, muddied (by RWNJ’s) topics in a clear, concise ways that have the potential to make non-hardened trumpsters see a different perspective than what the Fox clan feeds their listeners. Maybe not changing a mind, but planting a seed they just now are pondering.

    Rayne, please forgive this OT part… My first choice for VP is Pete. I believe the job will be given to the Le Braun James (Josh Shapiro) in the NBA Draft analogy discussed on a Bullwork podcast where Tim Miller and the other co-host (his idea) discussed how NBA teams (Harris’s campaign in this case) can talk themselves out of the obvious clear choice 1st round pick for various reasons. I admit, my desire to have ‘The Best’ communicator and effective attack dog be on the campaign trail, and in the White House, with Kamala, may (or may not?) in the end net her the most possible votes compared to the very popular Pennsylvania swing state governor. All the draft picks have here pluses and minuses. No crystal ball to see ahead if Shapiro’s views on Israel and Gaza will quell some progressives, or if the joy, exuberance, and focus of the Kamala campaign to date will continue and fine tooth looks at Shapiro’s past Israel comments will be overshadowed. Pete is v-e-r-y long odds for VP, but I love the guy!

Comments are closed.