The biggest flaw in Trump’s latest defense in classified docs case
Immediately following his federal criminal indictment, Donald Trump delivered a speech at his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, during which the former president failed to provide a meaningful defense. That wasn’t good news for the many Republican advocates who have sprung on shaky ground in his defense.
Last week, during an interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier, Trump tried again, arguing that he could have complied with a federal subpoena, but he was (a) busy; and (b) feared he might lose golf clothes he had “scattered” with the classified materials he allegedly stole from the White House.
These were the kind of comments federal prosecutors no doubt loved, even when the former president’s defense attorney smacked them across the forehead.
On Saturday, the Republican spoke at the Faith & Freedom Coalition’s annual conference, where he told a supportive crowd that National Archives officials should have just left him alone and not bothered him with the sensitive national security secrets he keeps on his glorified land wanted club. Out of the remarks:
“Whatever documents a president takes, he has the absolute right to take them, he has the absolute right to keep them, or he can return them to NARA [the National Archives and Records Administration] if he wants. … That is the law and it could not be clearer.”
There is no such law. But just as remarkable the rest of Trump’s pitch:
“Even the New York Times wrote in a big article – a big article they must hate, the author was probably fired for saying that – but they said NARA had the only power when it came to this , requesting documents from former presidents means: here you go. “Nice questions are the only thing they can do.” And yet they reported me to the Justice Department for prosecution. They don’t even have the right to ask – and if they ask, they have to be very nice, and I don’t have to back down.”
As the videos of the comments show, Trump read from his trusty teleprompter – which is relevant because it suggests it was a written defense. The former president regularly invents all sorts of nonsense, but in this case he and his team prepared concrete comments ahead of Saturday’s remarks.
And that’s what they came up with.
I was curious about the Times article Trump was quoting, and it wasn’t hard to find: In January, the newspaper published this report, which the former president — or whoever was responsible for writing that speech — apparently didn’t understanding.
It is true that the Times explained to readers in the second paragraph of the article that archive officials have limited powers: “Nice questions are the only thing they can do.”
But Team Trump probably should have read the third and fourth paragraphs as well, which explained that while NARA was unable to enforce its demands, records officials could “request” the Justice Department to do so ensure laws are properly enforced. NARA cannot require people to obey the law, but prosecutors can.
In other words, Trump told the public that under current federal law, according to the New York Times, the archives can only require former presidents to obey the law — and if they refuse, NARA must simply accept the intransigence and insidiousness and tolerate away in disappointment.
But this is crazy. Not only is this contrary to how law enforcement works, it is largely the opposite of what the newspaper actually reported.
The “absolute right” to ignore relevant laws that Trump has pointed out in his written comments does not exist.
If this is the defense he and his defense attorneys want to bring to court, they have to hope the jury consists of Republican donors who wear red beanies and read right-wing blogs on their phones during the trial.