The “Aha” Moment: The Trump Indictment Could Prove Revealing for Either Trump or the DOJ

Below is my column in the New York Post on the Trump indictment.

There are legitimate questions about the independence and integrity shown by the Department in past investigations from the Russian collusion allegations to the Hunter Biden scandal. The Justice Department cannot ignore those widespread concerns in these cases.

There is now word that the indictment may be released today. The public is likely to have an “Aha” moment in an indictment that will make either the case against Trump or the Department itself.

Here is the column:

“I am an innocent man!”

The words of former President Donald Trump would ordinarily be a good start for any criminal defendant.

But Trump is no ordinary criminal defendant.

He was speaking to millions of people who have already made up their minds on an indictment that has not been released, let alone read.

Indeed, the specifics of the indictment seem entirely immaterial to most people.

For roughly 30% on both ends of the political spectrum, any inquiry into these charges will begin and end at the caption: “United States v. Trump.”

Those four words either sum up a prosecution or persecution in the minds of most citizens.

This case, however, is different. In New York, Trump is facing a clearly political prosecution by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a case that easily fulfills Trump’s narrative of the weaponization of the criminal justice system.

In Georgia, another Democratic openly anti-Trump prosecutor is pursuing a case of election interference that many have questioned.

Yet, for roughly two years, I have said that there was one torpedo in the water that was a serious threat: an obstruction charge out of Mar-a-Lago.

That torpedo just hit.

Trump has long maintained that he and his staff viewed this as a civil matter under the Presidential Records Act.

They disagreed with the National Archives about Trump’s right to possess the documents.

Some documents were returned to the Archives and some were retained.

The FBI asked for and was given access to the storage room for the documents and, when it asked for additional security, the Trump team agreed.

They believed that they were still cooperating when the raid occurred on Mar-a-Lago.

The FBI has offered a strikingly different account.

From the very start, they described the conduct of the Trump team as “obstructive” — a line that many of us immediately flagged as ominous.

There are allegations of the movement of documents, false statements, and even the possible destruction of documents.

In the end, however, there is the mind of Donald Trump.

This case will turn on mens rea: did he know what he was doing was wrong, and what was his intent?

The actions are largely established, it is the motivation that will occupy a jury.

As in so many past controversies, Trump’s intransigence seems inexplicable and self-defeating.

However, to be criminal, it must be a knowing or willful violation of specific provisions.

There still remain key details that could blunt this defense.

We know that prosecutions forced Trump attorneys to go before a grand jury.

While that may create an appellate issue, there may be a cooperating witness who could offer damaging evidence of Trump’s knowledge or intent.

There are also rumors of video or audio tapes of the movement of documents or Trump discussing the material.

What is clear is that Trump is facing charges called “the darlings” of federal prosecutors: false statements to federal investigators and obstruction of justice.

Those charges represent a double threat.

First, the Justice Department has a long record of winning these cases.

They tend to be straightforward propositions for a jury.

They are the charges that criminal defense attorneys tend to loathe because they can come down to insular allegations that come with a ten to twenty-year potential sentence.

Second, and most seriously, these charges are secondary to the original basis for Trump removing or retaining the documents.

These are crimes that concern how Trump responded to the investigation.

The false statements charge is particularly damaging because it is a stand-alone offense.

Everything Trump has alleged can be true, but he could still be convicted if he falsified or misrepresented a fact in a discussion with the FBI.

And while there are legitimate concerns over the FBI’s past bias and hostility toward Trump, it is extremely hard to prevail on such selective prosecution claims in court.

Courts tend not to delve into the motivation of prosecutors if they have stated an otherwise valid legal and factual basis for charges.

Even if a court did entertain selective prosecution claims, it would not excuse false statements or obstruction charges.

The Trump team will not be the only ones uneasy in anticipation of these details.

The inclusion of mishandling charges is likely a concern for the Biden legal team.

After all, Biden is accused of repeatedly moving classified material to different locations, including his garage.

Some documents have reportedly been traced to removal from a secure location while Biden was still a senator over a decade ago.

If the indictment charges the possession and mishandling crimes, it could make it more difficult for his own special counsel to avoid charging Biden.

On the other hand, if the charges are crafted to avoid those crimes, there will be a concern over prosecutors seeking to nail President Trump but miss President Biden.

The Justice Department can argue that Biden did not claim that he had a right to take the documents and did not knowingly, stubbornly hold on to the documents after they were demanded.

While Biden’s account seems implausible on some points, the Justice Department could distinguish the cases as a matter of intentional versus negligent conduct.

In the end, whatever is found in this indictment is not likely to change many minds about Donald Trump or Joe Biden.

However, the credibility of the Justice Department is on the line.

The Special Counsel should not have taken this historic action without an overwhelming case.

We will all, therefore, be waiting to see if the indictment contains the type of “Aha” revelations that would justify this action.

Indicting a former president and the leading candidate for the presidency should not be a close call.

Jonathan Turley is an attorney and a professor at George Washington University Law School.

224 thoughts on “The “Aha” Moment: The Trump Indictment Could Prove Revealing for Either Trump or the DOJ”

  1. Anonymous
    The portions of the PRA that you think are clear – are the ones that are unconstitutional and were ignored by Judge Jackson and numerous other courts – because they are unconstitutional.

    I would further note that if the PRA were magically constitutional with respect to THOSE provisions – then other provisions would be unconstitutional.

    Either the PRA can not take ownership from an expresident, or it can not restrict he access of the current president.

    You can not have both – yet the law does both. Obviously parts of the PRA are unconstitutional.

    But you have failed to even think about that.

  2. Merrick Garland seems to believe it’s legal for the government to aggressively arrest and imprison Trump and his supporters while he turns a blind eye to serious crimes being committed by Democrats.

    To make this hold up in court, Garland is trying to make sure that the crimes Trump and his supporters are charged with are not precisely the same crimes being committed by Democrats.

    We’ll see how long this house of cards, which Garland calls his legal strategy, continues to stand.

  3. From the indictment:
    22. As a candidate for President of the United States, TRUMP made the following public statements, among others, about classified information:

    a. On August 18, 2016, TRUMP stated, “In my administration I’m going to enforce all laws concerning the protection of classified information. No one will be above the law.”

    b. On September 6, 2016, TRUMP stated, “We also need to fight this battle by collecting intelligence and then protecting, protecting our classified secrets. . . . We can’t have someone in the Oval Office who doesn’t understand the meaning of the word confidential or classified.”

    c. On September 7, 2016, TRUMP stated, “[O]ne of the first things we must do is to enforce all classification rules and to enforce all laws relating to the handling of classified information.”

    d. On September 19, 2016, TRUMP stated, “We also need the best protection of classified information.”

    e. On November 3, 2016, TRUMP stated, “Service members here in North Carolina have risked their lives to acquire classified intelligence to protect our country.”

    Trump on video saying these and related claims:

    1. So far ATS, the tape isn’t available and only portions were released to CNN. We know how that works from Jan 6. We get only the portions the Democrats want heard. The rest including exculpatory evidence is locked up. So far that is what you provided. If you have evidence, tell us the confidential material that was disclosed.. Skip telling us about the “headlines” and get to the details. You have done this cr-p for the last 7 years and been wrong almost always.

      Did Trump show confidential material to anyone? If he did, tell us what it was and prove it was confidential. Rustling of papers proves nothing. Did you ever notice lawyers rustle papers to make a point even though most of the papers were blank? You can be lead by the nose by your leftist friends and you wouldn’t know it.

      However, when it involves Hillary Clinton the story is different. Carelessness is the excuse but that was downright illegal. She wasn’t President. Biden had no right to the documents he had. Trump had a right to the documents. He was President.

      Biden has destroyed the nation.
      Trump made the nation stronger.

      Why do you forget about the important stuff and concentrate on disinformation?

    2. Every day, American voters from coast to coast are noticing that Trump is being continually targeted for destruction by the DOJ, the FBI, the CIA, the DOD, the NSA, the Democrat leadership, many in the GOP leadership, Wall Street, Big Tech, the news industry, the entertainment industry, and academia. Don’t be surprised, in 2024, to see some Biden voters switch over to Trump as a reflexive response to this Big Brother atmosphere. A couple of percentage points in key states might be enough to make a difference.

  4. “The indictment creates, at the minimum, a serious appearance of a double standard and a miscarriage of justice—an impression that is only strengthened by allegations that a Biden Justice Department lawyer ‘inappropriately sought to pressure’ a Trump-affiliated lawyer with the prospect of a judgeship,” _Jordan

    More illegalities by the Biden Administration.

    “expressed strong concerns with the Department’s pursuit of the raid and noted several unusual features in the Department’s handling of the case.” _D’Antuono

    Why did the Washington Field office of the FBI handle the raid instead of the Miami office?

    The Biden Administration wishes to control every aspect by using those who have side-stepped the law in the past.

    Who did the Biden Administration use?

    “Bratt is the same Department lawyer who allegedly improperly pressured a lawyer representing an employee of President Trump,” _Jordan

    That department pushed for a search warrant when they should have obtained a consent to search which likely would have been approved. Can we trust anything done by the investigators and the FBI? The actions of the FBI and prosecutors have been shown to be politically motivated.

    “Director Christopher Wray made the decision to seek a search warrant, despite opposition from the line agents working this case in the [Washington Field Office].”

    D’Antuono “testified that the FBI sought to exclude President Trump’s attorney from the search”

    Why would the FBI want to exclude a Trump witness of the raid?
    Why is there so much difficulty in getting the records on how all this occurred?
    Why are the tactics so Stalinist?

  5. “…the rotten sweetness of corruption”—The Big Sleep

    We’ve seen this movie before in the Alvin Bragg prequel—you attempt to bootstrap a minor offense (which in Bragg’s case he would have difficulty proving in and of itself) into a serious felony.

    In this sequel, what we have is at its very core a dispute regarding the Presidential Records Act (PRA) (which establishes while the gov’t has ownership the President has the right to access Presidential records inclusive of classified materials). The manner of access (which obviously includes the former President having possession of Presidential materials) and the process by which records are to be transferred to the Archivist are left open to the respective parties to work out. Importantly, the PRA is not, nor was it ever intended to be, a criminal statute.

    Enter our ever intrepid DOJ, which in a Houdini-like act of legerdemain conjure up the Espionage Act and various Executive Orders with the express assumption (among others) that the Presidential records in question were illegally obtained. In fact, the search warrant was based on this facially faulty assumption. The problems, among many, are that Executive Orders can not supersede statutes and general statues, as a matter of Supreme Court precedent, can not override specific statues (the PRA in this case). What this flawed approach does accomplish for our DOJ is that it transforms a civil matter into a criminal matter.

    This brings us to the most extraordinary thing about the indictment. There’s not a single mention of the PRA in the indictment. Not one. In a case where the PRA is the core issue. It’s like being at home plate and trying to score without ever touching first, second or third base. The first order issue that the DOJ should be compelled to address is why the PRA does not hold sway here and how exactly were these records illegally obtained in light of the PRA.

    From the beginning, this flawed use of the Espionage Act et al. was nothing more than a ruse to get an investigative foot in the door. The aim from the beginning was to ensnare Trump on any of a host of malleable process crimes which legally can stand alone. Mission accomplished.

    For our nation, this is a sad and undeniably disgraceful time. How can we remain a democracy with free and fair elections when an incumbent administration can brazenly weaponize the DOJ and FBI against its political opponents while our press either cheerleads or stands by idly and memory holes any facts depending on which is most beneficial to the Democrat agenda? In the context of the two IG reports, the Mueller report and the Durham report, these are truly troubling times for the future of our country. We will rue the day we crossed this Rubicon.

    For the Democrats and this Administration, however, this indictment is undoubtedly very sweet indeed.

    1. A former President only has authority to view classified material if it’s granted by the sitting President (which is not the case here), and the PRA does not grant former Presidents authority to possess national defense information from their administration.

      1. “the PRA does not grant former Presidents authority to possess national defense information from their administration.”

        So? Does the PRA have that power? That needs to be tested in court. We have a Constitution. So far the Biden Administration bypassed the courts on the most important issues. That is despotism.

      2. In fact, the PRA specifically contemplates that classified materials will be encompassed within the Presidential records. It is one of the bases on which the former President will determine when the public will be granted access.

  6. Ok. Show of hands, class. Who had, “DOJ Starts US Civil War Part 2, in Miami to Distract From 50 Years of Dear Leader’s Corruption”, on their Bingo Card?

    1. They haven’t started a civil war. They’ve charged Trump and Nauta with crimes for which the DOJ has considerable evidence, presented in the indictment (and presumably more will be presented in court), and Trump and Nauta can respond in court. Only unpatriotic people suggest taking up arms in response.

      1. ATS, You and the left are pushing for illegal and despotic control over the country. That is what starts civil wars or civil disobedience.

        Trump didn’t take money from Ukraine. Biden did.

        The left has weaponized the DOJ including the Special Council. The files in question were under dispute as has been the case with every recent President. This President raided the home of a former President instead of getting a court order. That by itself is usurpation of power falsely justified.

        Such action by the Biden administration is despotic. Biden should be impeached, but his excuse will be mental incapacity.

  7. Jonathan: In other news this is Pride Month. I know you will be celebrating it by inviting your LGBTQ+ friends over for a backyard BBQ. Pres. Biden is also celebrating by welcoming hundreds of LGBTQ+ people to the south lawn of the WH. This will be the largest Pride event hosted at the WH. Don’t expect Ron DeSantis or other GOP politicians to be in attendance. The are too busy passing hundreds of laws attacking LGBTQ+ rights. It’s part of the “culture wars”, you know. And when you are at “war” with people you hate all hands have to be on deck!

    1. “Pride Month”

      If you need a month and a crowd, then you don’t have it — and never will.


    Article II, Section 1

    The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

    The President alone wields the executive branch power of classification, declassification and archiving of materials.

    The legislative branch has no legal basis to usurp the power of the executive branch.

    No legislation usurping the power of the executive branch is constitutional.

    No legislation usurping the power of the executive branch to classify, declassify and archive material is constitutional.

    1. Trump is no longer President. He admitted on tape to having national defense information that was still classified and to showing it to people who didn’t have security clearances.

      1. Oops. You’re right. President Joke Buydumb has all the authority and legal basis to hop on down to Mar A Lago and give Real President Donald J. Trump a spanking, but the fact remains that no legislation by the legislative branch usurping the power of the executive branch is constitutional.

      2. Where in the indictment does it say that he did anything more than point to or hold up or display a document? Nothing I read in it said that he “showed” a document to anyone, in the sense of allowing them to read it.

        I don’t think the DOJ will argue that he gave classified information to anyone — this was implied in the indictment to make the offence seem more serious. Instead they will argue that he was unauthorised to have it, and that he retained it, in violation of 793(e). Trump’s argument will be that he was authorised to have it under the PRA. I suspect he will lose that argument.

        As I have said before, it may well be that the DOJ can win this case. That does not mean it should have been brought. There is no evidence at all, so far at least, that any harm was done to the national defence through Trump’s retention of these documents. In the absence of such harm, it is destructive for the DOJ to bring this case against a former President and leading challenger in 2024, especially when it declined to prosecute Clinton for her unlawful possession of classified documents (which many have said were in fact accessed by foreign governments), will not prosecute Biden for his unlawful possession of classified documents for years and decades (including some he likely stole as a Senator) and has ignored all the evidence of Biden’s corruption.

        1. He’s quoted as saying things like “Look at this.” We don’t know what they read when they looked at it.

          We also don’t know whether Biden will be prosecuted, only that he won’t be prosecuted while in office, per the same OLC memo that prevented Trump from being prosecuted while in office. Trump is free to argue selective prosecution.

          As for the harm done, presumably that will be laid out more fully in the trial. But last fall they already noted “[I]n order to assess the full scope of potential harms to national security resulting from the improper retention of the classified records, the government must assess the likelihood that improperly stored classified information may have been accessed by others and compromised. Departments and agencies in the IC would then consider this information to determine whether they need to treat certain sources and methods as compromised. See, e.g., Exhibit A to Sentencing Memorandum, United States v. Pho, No. 1:17-cr-631 (D. Md. Sept. 18, 2018), D.E. 20-1 (letter from Adm. Michael S. Rogers, Director, National Security Agency) (“Once the government loses positive control over classified material, the government must often treat the material as compromised and take remedial actions as dictated by the particular circumstances.”).” The letter that’s quoted continues “Depending on the type and volume of compromised classified material, such reactions can be costly, time consuming and cause a shift in or abandonment of programs.”

  9. Jonathan: Now that the 44 page DOJ indictment of Donald J. Trump and Walt Nauta has been released we have a clear idea of the meticulous and thorough investigation of Jack Smith’s team. It’s a pretty straight forward case that lays out in detail how Trump and Nauta were personally involved in the packing of top secret and other classified docs at the WH, transported them to Mar-a-Lago, failed to fully comply with the subpoena, and hid the docs from the FBI and even Trump’s attorneys. It’s a pretty clear case of false statements and obstruction.

    I watched your appearance on Fox re the indictment in which you said: “It’s overwhelming in detail”…”It’s damming” and “This is an indictment you can’t dismiss”. But in your NY Post column you try to deflect by making a number of false claims:

    1. You claim that DA Alvin Bragg’s case against Trump is a “clearly political prosecution” and “a case that easily fulfills Trump’s narrative of the weaponization of the criminal justice system”. Bragg didn’t deliberately target Trump because of who he is but because the Trumpster allegedly violated several NY state laws. The jurors in the upcoming trial of Trump will decide his guilt or innocence. I seriously doubt they will swayed by claims the case is a “political prosecution”.

    2. You also falsely claim Fulton County DA Fani Willis criminal case is being brought by “another openly anti-Trump prosecutor” who “is pursuing a case of election interference that many have questioned”. Who are those who have “questioned” the results of the 2020 election in Georgia? Only Trump and his GOP accomplices inside and outside of the state. It is only Trump who tried to overturn the election by trying to strong arm Georgia election officials and get the GOP’s state legislator to put up fake electors. All that was a violation of both federal and state election laws. Willis’ oath is to uphold Georgia’s laws–whether she likes or dislikes Trump personally.

    3. You also claim that Trump’s attorneys, like Evan Corcoran, were “forced” to testify in front of Smit’s grand jury. You think that testimony will “create an appellate issue”. Really? Trump and his former attorneys claimed they were protected from testifying because of the atty/client privilege. They went to court and lost that argument. The court’s ruled that the “crime-fraud” exception applied so Trump’s attorneys had no choice but to testify. There is no basis for an appellate review.

    As an attorney and constitutional scholar you are duty bound to defend and uphold the rule of law. But you seem to have chosen another path–to provide an echo chamber for Trump’s false claims and those of the GOP MAGA defenders of all things Trump. In an official statement by the GOP-led Judiciary Committee they said in response to the Trump indictment: “Joe Biden’s garage!”. That pretty much sums up the “whataboutism” GOP approach to defending Trump. When Jack Smith brings down his second hammer on Trump over the Jan. 6 insurrection you won’t see Biden’s name mentioned anywhere. It will be another “Aha” moment for the rule of law!

    1. Dennis: It’s one thing that the good professor permits you to use space on his blog to spout your opinions. It’s another thing to outright accuse the professor of “making a number of false claims” (your 2nd para, supra). Why don’t you simply move to another blog where your views are more respected?
      p.s. for someone who brags that he graduated from law school, you really ought to learn how to spell “damming.”

      1. lin, you may have missed previous postings that some of us regulars have made over the past years on the trolls, so in case you did, here is the explanation to their comments. They are here to disrupt, cause chaos and bring attention to their agendas. Numerous academic articles have discussed the online persona known as the Dark Triad Troll, comprised of the following behaviors: narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy. While it might be tempting to think everyone on here wants to exchange in friendly academic repartee, Dennis, Svelaz, Fishwings, Gigi, Wally, Reagan’s, sealioning Anonymous, Justice Holmes, et al, aren’t in the latter group. They are likely one and the same individual or at most w individuals paid by David Brock’s “Media Matters” troll farm. This article and the following video explain further

        Jauk E, Dieterich R. Addiction and the Dark Triad of Personality. Front Psychiatry. 2019 Sep 17;10:662. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00662.

          1. If the troll took a creative writing course at a community college, he would fare better in his numerous comments via multiple sock puppet accounts and create a compelling “army” of debaters. Sadly they all read alike with the same sophomoric slop. The following quote by “Dennis” is the same verbiage “Svelaz”, “Concerned Citizen”, sealioning “Anonymous” post routinely verbatim. His paid handlers are settling for bottom dwelling catfish trolls


            Dennis McIntyre says: June 10, 2023 at 5:35 PM
            It’s my right on this blog. Otherwise, Turley’s commitment to “free speech” would be empty rhetoric

            Insert “Empty Wheel” quote here

            1. LOL:)

              I’ve birds that live around here that can communicate better then the trolls here.

              The Crows say Har, Har, Har, about Trolls. 😉

      2. Dennis probably went to a 2 year college and took a prelaw course. The mindset we are subjected to is skin-deep and infected by wokeism. All his posts have the same rhetoric which he is unable to defend.

      3. lin: My views are “respected” everywhere. But I prefer this blog because it gives me an opportunity to expose the fallacies and inaccuracies in many of Prof. Turley’s columns. It’s my right on this blog. Otherwise, Turley’s commitment to “free speech” would be empty rhetoric.

        P.S.: If Turley occasionally commits spelling errors why not me? The Professor is much more learned than me on the law and Constitution and he has a host of assistants that should catch his spelling errors. I don’t. Picky, picky, picky!

        1. JT does not make spelling errors, he makes typos. Different from your pompous ignorance.

    2. Turley has taken twisting pretzel logic on Trump to another level, He consistently enables the cult that is left on his blog, because that’s the only people that believe him anymore.

  10. @VivekGRamaswamy says it very clearly:

    “Biden recently dismissed the Chinese spy balloon incident as a “silly balloon” that got in the way of dialogue with China.

    Then a silly Chinese warship harassed our U.S. Navy in the Taiwan Strait.

    Now a silly Chinese spy base just pops up in Cuba with zero response from the U.S. President.

    The CCP’s investment in Biden Inc. is paying off handsomely. It’ll be interesting to see what the Espionage Act has to say about that.”


    IMPEACH Biden now!

  11. Throughout Trump’s campaign for the presidency, he should promise that he will pardon himself on Inauguration Day 2025 if by that day he has not been exonerated. A re-elected Trump will then be able to make a strong case that a self-pardon has been endorsed by the American people.

      1. During his first term in the White House, in the face of continual, untruthful, and hypocritical attacks from the left and his own party, Donald Trump achieved gasoline prices under $2 a gallon, record low unemployment, inflation under 2%, rising real wages for working-class Americans, a dramatic reduction in illegal immigration, the end of NAFTA, better trade agreements with Mexico and Canada, higher tariffs on products from Communist China, lower taxes on American corporations and small businesses, reduced regulation of American manufacturing and energy production, withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement, American energy independence, a significant increase in American military spending, a significant increase in military spending by the other NATO allies, creation of the United States Space Force, no new wars, reduced missile testing by North Korea, cancellation of the Obama nuclear weapons agreement with Iran, recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, the brokering of historic trade agreements between Israel and its Arab neighbors, restoration of quality medical care for veterans at the VA, elimination of the Obamacare mandate to buy health insurance, the right of terminally ill patients to try experimental treatment, the appointment of more than 230 federal judges who believe in following the Constitution, the appointment of three Supreme Court justices who believe in following the Constitution, and a welcoming environment in the Republican Party for good and decent Americans of all races and classes. Seventeen months after Trump left office, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade with a 6-3 vote. Go Trump.

      2. ATS, did you see Miller’s reply. What do you have to say about Trump’s successes? What do you have to say about Biden’s failures. What do you have to say about the weaponization of the DOJ?

        Those are the important issues. Why are you silent on the important things and so vociferous about things that aren’t true?

  12. @mrddmia

    With today’s indictment of Trump, AG Merrick Garland apparently didn’t seek a legal opinion from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC).

    As it’s nearly impossible OLC would opine Jack Smith’s legal theory is valid.

    Supreme Court will have to reverse him.


  13. Can we please start with the ridiculous imbalance of power between the government’s legal juggernaut and the victim of an investigation that is, “false statements to federal investigators”.
    Federal investigators (in fact, all federal agents) lie constantly. “The border is secure.” “You won’t get COVID if you get the vax.” On and on… Sometimes it seems the main role of the federal government is to lie to keep the sheeple in submission.
    But if the FBI can’t hang anything else on there’s always the old reliable “lying to investigators” charge.
    There will be justice in the United States when any (provable) lie by any agent of government is a prosecuted offense.

    1. The charges are:
      18 USC 793(e): willful retention of national defense information — 31 counts
      18 USC 1512(k): conspiracy to obstruct justice
      18 USC 1512(b)(2)(A): inducing someone to withhold testimony
      18 USC 1512(c)(1): corruptly concealing documents
      18 USC 1519: concealing documents
      18 USC 1001(a)(1): scheme to conceal a material fact
      18 USC 1001(a)(2): false statements
      18 USC 2: punishable as a principal

      The bulk of the charges are the 31 counts of willful retention of national defense information, not false statements. Even among the other charges, more fall in the conspiracy to obstruct, including by inducing someone to withhold testimony, and concealing documents.

        1. The Special Counsel has a great deal of regard for the rule of law. That’s why Trump’s been charged.

          1. Absolutely false. The Special Counsel was appointed to get Trump and inhibit his ability to run for the Presidency. This has been going on since Trump stepped down from the escalator announcing his run for the Presidency.

            This is more of the same and the accusations have to do with civil matters .

            Biden’s a crook, and the Democrats are hiding that by prosecuting others. They don’t want to lose the election because a loss means the DOJ will do its job and stop protecting crooks like Biden.

            We can listen to what ATS said on almost all major issues. There was only one thing consistent in his dialog. He was wrong. Add to that he lied.

    2. Don’t forget “If you like your doctor. . . .”
      Or Harry Reid accusing Mitt Romney of not paying taxes.

  14. “In the middle of directing the difficult task of transferring the historically important records of the Obama administration into the National Archives, the archivist in charge, David Ferriero, ran into a serious problem: A lot of key records are missing.”

    “And yet the accumulation of recent congressional testimony has made it clear that the Obama administration itself engaged in the wholesale destruction and “loss” of tens of thousands of government records covered under the act as well as the intentional evasion of the government records recording system by engaging in private email exchanges.”

    Crisis at the National Archives

    Gee, wonder why Obama admiinstration would want to destroy some documents. And get away with it, of course.

  15. Mike Davis 🇺🇸

    “2020 was a big year for Katy Chevigny.

    She produced a film about Michelle Obama.

    And donated $1,000 to Biden’s presidential campaign.

    Now her husband Jack Smith indicted Biden’s chief political enemy.

    The day after Biden got caught taking a $10 million foreign bribe.”

    1. I’m sure SC Smith handing down this indictment the day after Biden is [alleged] to have taken a $10 million bribe is purely ‘coincidence.’

      Agent Smith is fast and quick. Most Special Counsel investigations languish for years and years and typically result in big fat ‘nothingburgers’. A penny saved, is a penny earned.

      *see the recent SC Durham Report .. . evidently, they’ve had an ‘open’ investigation on Joe Biden since 1989 and the ‘fall of the wall’.

  16. Interesting how easily Special Counsel Jack Smith was able to pierce attorney-client privilege to seize notes from Trump’s attorney, while Special Counsel Durham just accepted privilege claims asserted by Fusion GPS & Perkins Coie, allowing them to bury 1500 potential smoking guns.


  17. Article II, Section 4: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, BRIBERY, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

    IMPEACH Biden now.

Leave a Reply