The Truth About Trump's Classified Document Case

Part 6 and the series finale of The Lawfare Files

When one weaponizes the law against their political opposition, there is essentially no limit to how far a prosecution could go—as long as that prosecution is grounded in something "on the books." Throughout this series, we have examined the tactics prosecutors and judges have used to slow down Donald Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign. Various prosecutors deployed seemingly outlandish legal maneuvers to accuse him of serious offenses: fraudulent business dealings, violations of election protocol, predatory behavior, and conspiring to overturn an election.

As we analyzed each case, recurring patterns became evident: reliance on hearsay and speculation, broadened charges to increase the chances of a conviction, and indictments timed conspicuously after Trump announced his re-election bid. Another trend we observed was the use of weak legal theories by prosecutors—and sometimes judges—to justify their pursuit of Trump. Yet, among all the prosecutions covered thus far, none revealed government weaponization more clearly than the case involving Trump’s handling of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.

This particular prosecution was arguably the most complex of all Trump-related cases for several reasons. First, the classified documents investigation arose after Trump’s first term ended and before he formally announced his re-election bid. It was one of only two federal-level cases brought against him, and it was led by a Department of Justice (DOJ) Special Counsel, Jack Smith. It was also the only case to involve allegations tied to national security, specifically under the Espionage Act of 1917—a World War I-era law intended to prevent the disclosure of information that could jeopardize national defense.

Furthermore, this case stood out as the only one overseen by a non-Democrat judge, Aileen Cannon, in Palm Beach, Florida. At the outset, it was widely regarded as the most serious legal threat to Trump due to the specificity of the charges and the alleged “evidence” presented against him. However, as this analysis will demonstrate, that so-called evidence fails to hold up under scrutiny.

---

Background Information

The prosecution of (then) former President Donald Trump in the classified documents case stemmed from events that followed his departure from the White House in January 2021. After leaving office, Trump transported numerous government records—including hundreds of classified documents—to his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) repeatedly requested their return, citing the Presidential Records Act, which establishes that such materials, including sensitive documents related to nuclear capabilities and military operations, are government property. By May 2021, NARA identified missing records. In January 2022, Trump’s team returned several boxes, which included 184 classified documents. However, Trump and his aides allegedly withheld additional materials, prompting NARA to refer the matter to the Department of Justice in February 2022.

Then, on August 8, 2022, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) executed a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago to recover classified documents believed to be stored in unsecured locations. On June 8, 2023, Special Counsel Jack Smith—appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland—indicted Trump in the Southern District of Florida on 40 felony counts. These included 32 counts under the Espionage Act (18 U.S.C. § 793) for the willful retention of national defense information, each corresponding to a specific document, and eight additional counts related to obstruction of justice, such as conspiracy to obstruct and making false statements. The most serious charges carried a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison.

Trump’s co-defendants, Walt Nauta—his personal valet—and Carlos De Oliveira—the property manager at Mar-a-Lago—were also charged with related obstruction offenses.

---

The Arguments in Defense of President Trump

As pre-trial proceedings occurred, President Trump’s legal team, led by Christopher Kise, filed multiple motions on February 22, 2024, on four core constitutional grounds, for the impending trial. Those motions, by the way, are ones I agree with completely.

Presidential Immunity

Main Article: The Constitutional Case for Presidential Immunity

Originally addressed in his Election Obstruction prosecution, Kise filed a motion that all of Trump’s charges should be dismissed on the grounds that Trump is entitled to Presidential Immunity. While the Supreme Court ruled last year in Trump v. United States (2024) that Incumbent and former Presidents do enjoy immunity for their actions as President, there is still debate of whether Trump’s immunity qualified in his classified documents case.

Trump’s legal team argued that the actions alleged in the indictment—namely, designating records as “personal” under the Presidential Records Act (PRA) and causing their transfer to Mar-a-Lago—were official acts. Official acts by a President are immune from criminal prosecution under the Constitution, just as the Supreme Court has recognized civil immunity for official acts in Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982). If the court accepts the premise that these were official acts, then it cannot adjudicate or punish Trump for them without violating the separation of powers. The motion is not arguing Trump is above the law in general, only that criminal liability cannot be attached to “official acts” made while in office. The defense also emphasizes the timing of the acts, and the decision to take the documents and classify them as personal was allegedly made before noon on Jan 20, 2021, i.e., while he was still President.

However, this would most certainly be the weakest challenge to Trump’s motion to dismiss on these grounds. Several things must occur for the case to be dismissed on Presidential Immunity. First, the Court must agree that the acts in question were “official.” Prosecutors may argue the alleged retention and obstruction after leaving office were private actions. Then, even if an act was deemed to be “official” in form, courts might hold that illegal acts or abuse of power can pierce immunity, especially in criminal cases. Again, while the Supreme Court recognized in Trump v. United States (2024) that Presidents enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution for their acts, Judge Cannon could still set up boundaries to determine if Trump’s actions fell within his legal authority, as vested under Article II.

The Unconstitutional Vagueness of the Espionage Act

Another motion filed by Trump’s legal defense used to dismiss the Classified Documents case was based on the interpretation of the statute around which his indictment revolved—The Espionage Act, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 793(e), which is explained as:

Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it;

This motion makes a defense for Donald Trump by arguing that 18 U.S.C. § 793(e) of the Espionage Act is unconstitutionally vague as applied to him—meaning it doesn’t give fair notice of what conduct is prohibited and invites arbitrary enforcement in violation of due process and separation of powers principles. Several documents have vague subject descriptions or concern diplomatic/political information. These are more susceptible to a defense argument that they do not qualify as "national defense information." Trump's vagueness claim hinges largely on the idea that as applied to a former President, the statute fails to provide fair notice, particularly where he had constitutional and statutory authority to determine how documents were classified or retained.

To understand this point, we need to define what legally qualifies as an Unconstitutionally Vague Law. Citing previously ruled Supreme Court cases of United States v. Davis (2019), Sessions v. Dimaya (2018), and Johnson v. United States (2015), A law is unconstitutionally vague if:

1. It fails to give ordinary people fair notice of what is criminal conduct.

2. It invites arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement by giving prosecutors or judges too much discretion.

Then there is the unique position of Trump’s legal status. Based on the guidelines under Article II and Executive Order 13526, Trump was the Original Classification Authority (OCA) with final say on what is or isn’t classified. He also had executive privilege that the Presidential Records Act (PRA) gave him discretion to declare records as personal, and also Trump held a security clearance relevant to at least one document as addressed in Count 19. Because of these unique factors, it is unclear whether his possession of documents was “unauthorized” or if the documents fell under the statute.

The motion for dismissal also attacks three key phrases of § 793(e) as unconstitutionally vague when applied to Trump: The first one is the “Unauthorized Possession” (The Authorization Clause), arguing Trump had constitutional and statutory authority to possess the documents. Because the term “unauthorized” isn’t defined clearly enough to account for that, the law fails to give fair notice and allows for arbitrary enforcement. For example, past presidents took records and were not charged—so the standard seems to be applied selectively. The second phrase is the “Relating to the National Defense Intelligence” (NDI) clause. Courts and scholars have long acknowledged that this phrase is open-ended and overly broad. Anything could potentially relate to national defense in some way. Trump’s motion claims Congress never fixed the language and courts have overcompensated with a “judge-made gloss”—which is an authoritative interpretation or explanation of a statute or regulation provided by a court—that violated the Rule of Lenity (criminal statutes must be interpreted narrowly). Then there is the “Entitled to Receive,” also known as the Entitlement Clause. The statute doesn’t explain who counts as “entitled” to receiving authorized access to national defense documents.

For additional context, “authorized” access to classified information, there are three stipulations that must be satisfied:

1. Properly cleared to the level of classification

2. Have a valid need to know

3. Signed non-disclosure agreement agreeing not (ever) to disclose the information

Therefore, The Executive Order used by prosecutors (E.O. 13526) doesn’t help, because it excludes Presidential Records from its classification scheme—and thus doesn’t apply clearly to Trump’s case.

Additional arguments from the motion include how the prosecutors may argue the statute requires “willful” intent to break the law, which limits its application to bad actors. The counter-argument from the defense claims that “willfully” isn’t enough to cure vagueness when the statute leaves too much discretion to juries or prosecutors (source: Giaccio v. Pennsylvania, 1966). Trump’s team also calls for an outright dismissal of Count 19, involving a document Trump allegedly had while still holding an active “Q clearance” (Department of Energy). The motion claims that even under the statute’s terms, possession was not unauthorized—so that count must be dismissed because of the authorization clause which allows Trump to be custodian of the DOE documents thanks to his clearance..

Overall, the motion makes the case that Trump’s prosecution under § 793(e) is unconstitutional because the statute is too vague—especially when applied to a former president who had classification authority and legal discretion under the PRA.

The Presidential Records Act (PRA)

While this statute is not referenced in Jack Smith’s indictment against Donald Trump, Trump’s legal team filed an amicus brief claiming that the Presidential Records Act (PRA) is a crucial law that should allow the dismissal of the case altogether. Signed into law by President Carter in 1978, the Presidential Records Act ordains that records of Presidents and Vice Presidents created or received after January 20, 1981 are deemed “official records”, and mandates the preservation of all presidential records. The PRA changed the legal ownership of the President's official records from private to public, and established a new statutory structure under which Presidents must manage their records.

The legal argument revolving around the PRA defends former President Trump by asserting that the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) violated the law when it referred him for criminal prosecution, specifically under the Presidential Records Act. The defense is attempting to invalidate the indictment by arguing that both procedural and substantive legal violations occurred.

First off, the NARA’s Referral was unauthorized, and could be in violation of the PRA. The PRA does not give NARA express authority to make criminal referrals to the DOJ. Unlike the Federal Records Act, which does allow the Archivist to involve the Attorney General (44 U.S.C. § 3106), the PRA contains no such provision. It should also be noted that this is the first time ever that the NARA had made a criminal referral under the PRA, making this an unprecedented expansion of its power. The absence of textual authority and historical precedent, combined with Supreme Court rulings requiring clear Congressional authorization for major actions, supports the argument that NARA overstepped its bounds. So, if the NARA had no legal right to initiate a criminal referral, then any indictment flowing from it could be tainted as procedurally invalid and unlawfully initiated, undermining the entire case.

Then there is the issue of how the documents were obtained. Under 44 U.S.C. § 2205(2), the DOJ can only access Presidential records either through a subpoena or a court order, at the request of the incumbent President for current business, or if requested by Congress. The documents in question were not subpoenaed at first, and the White House request was allegedly made on behalf of the DOJ, not for presidential business. The DOJ’s lack of lawful access to the records under the statute could mean that its evidence collection violated the PRA, giving Trump an argument to suppress the evidence and dismiss the charges.

Lastly, the third and strongest case for Trump’s defense through the PRA is on the basis of Executive Privilege. The defense cites Nixon v. GSA to argue that a former President retains executive privilege, especially over personal or sensitive documents. They also assert NARA failed to respect Trump’s invocation of privilege and that this violates both the PRA and constitutional protections. More specific to the statute itself, there is a section in the PRA titled § 2208(c)(2)(B) that explains the specifics of former President's privileges:

“If the incumbent President upholds the claim of privilege asserted by the former President, the Archivist shall not make the Presidential record (or reasonably segregable part of a record) subject to the claim publicly available unless.—(ii) the Archivist is otherwise directed by a final court order that is not subject to appeal.”

So, a former President could claim privilege over certain documents, arguing that they are protected from disclosure by executive privilege or that any violation of protocol was incidental to the proper exercise of this privilege. This could be used to shield certain documents from scrutiny. If Trump had a continuing right to assert privilege over the documents, then the NARA’s release of the documents without honoring that privilege could render the evidence improperly obtained.

It should be clarified that though the defense is not necessarily trying to prove that Trump did nothing wrong under the PRA. Instead, it is arguing that the DOJ shouldn’t have been allowed to use the records, the process leading to the indictment was legally flawed, and the NARA acted ultra vires (beyond its authority). Therefore, the indictment must be dismissed on these procedural and constitutional grounds. This defense validates the illegitimacy of the criminal referral and the resulting indictment by showing that the NARA’s actions were unauthorized by the PRA, ignoring the President’s sole discretion over record classification and Executive Privilege.

Jack Smith’s Appointment as Special Counsel

The fourth legal argument Christopher Kise filed in a motion to dismiss the charges against Trump had to do with how Jack Smith got appointed as the Special Counsel. In Kise’s motion, he lays out two constitutional arguments for dismissing Special Counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of Donald Trump: (1) a violation of the Appointments Clause, and (2) a violation of the Appropriations Clause.

Violation of the Appointments Clause

In the United States Constitution, the Appointments Clause is addressed under Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, requiring that:

“The President…shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”

To annotate, the Constitution ordains that Principal officers must be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. It also states that Inferior officers can be appointed by the President, courts, or heads of departments—but only if Congress explicitly authorizes it by statute. In the case of Jack Smith’s appointment as Special Counsel, Kise argues the appointment violates this clause for varying reasons.

To start, there is no statutory office of “Special Counsel.” The Constitution requires that all federal offices must be “established by law”—in other words, created by Congress. Kise’s motion argues that the Special Counsel position was not created by statute and thus cannot be a valid federal office. Then there is the issue of Smith not ever being properly appointed as an “officer.” Trump’s team claims that Smith, a private citizen at the time of appointment, was appointed by the Attorney General without Senate confirmation and without a congressional statute authorizing that appointment. This, they argue, makes his appointment ultra vires (beyond lawful authority).

With regard to AG Garland, who appointed Jack Smith, the former relied mainly on a DOJ practice known as the Reno Regulations (28 C.F.R. § 600). These regulations created, by Janet Reno in 1999, are ethical rules for Federal prosecutors promulgated in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) after the Independent Counsel law expired. However, these internal DOJ rules, like all others addressed in the CFR, are not Congressional laws and therefore cannot create a Federal office under the Appointments Clause. In addition, there are also relevant statutory citations (e.g., 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, 515) that do not authorize the creation of new offices or the appointment of independent prosecutors. The motion argues these statutes are about assigning duties within the DOJ, not about authorizing the creation of new, independent offices like Smith’s. Furthermore, Smith's independence contradicts his legal status. If Smith is indeed an inferior officer (as Garland claims), then he must be subordinate to someone—yet he claims full independence, which would make him a principal officer requiring Senate confirmation. Trump’s team argues you can’t have it both ways.

Violation of the Appropriations Clause

In the United States Constitution, the Appointments Clause is addressed under Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the U.S. Constitution, states that:

“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law;”

The DOJ’s funding of Jack Smith’s office violates the Appropriations Clause because Smith is drawing from a “permanent indefinite appropriation” originally intended for Independent Counsels under the expired Ethics in Government Act. Congress let the Independent Counsel Act expire in 1999 due to concerns about unaccountable, politically motivated investigations. The Reno Regulations promised DOJ-controlled prosecutors would be subject to regular DOJ budgetary limits and oversight—but Smith’s office still draws from a separate, untouchable fund, bypassing Congressional oversight. Smith’s office is not independent in the way that would legally justify access to that fund. One famous example, Patrick Fitzgerald in the Plame investigation, could access that funding only because he was already a Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorney and had sufficient independence. Per Trump’s team, Smith doesn’t meet that standard.

Ultimately, Jack Smith was being funded in a manner that bypassed Congressional control, violating Separation of Powers by drawing funds not legally authorized for his use. More importantly, Smith was holding a Federal office that was never created by Congress, and not filled through proper constitutional procedures—thus, his actions (including indictments) are legally void.

Selective Prosecution / Arbitrary Enforcement

While there is no official motion on this matter, there is a very strong case to be made that was indirectly created as a result of this case, which was the active practice of Selective Prosecution. LSD Law, a website for Law students, defines this form of prosecution as:

Selective prosecution is the practice of a prosecutor choosing to bring criminal charges against someone based on their personal discretion, rather than following the normal procedures of the prosecuting authority's office. This can be considered a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment if the defendant is singled out for prosecution while others in similar situations have not been prosecuted, and the prosecutor's reasons for doing so are not valid.

What this definition is saying is not merely just a prosecutor choosing to indict a particular individual, but the fact that they are choosing to prosecute that individual while refusing to prosecute others on the same charges. This debate on selective prosecution plays a significant role in relation to President Trump’s classified documents case because there is a strong case to be made it could be deemed that Trump is being unfairly prosecuted. “How could that be?” One may ask. The answer can be found when we take a look back at the history of the American Presidency.

Historical Examples

As explained once by author and political commentator James Bovard, there is an extensive history of former Presidents withholding documents under the Presidential Records Act.

1. The Nixon Library did not release the final batch of his secret tapes until 2013 — 39 years after Nixon was driven from office.

2. The Lyndon B. Johnson Library delayed releasing the final batch of his secret tapes of presidential conversations until 2016 — 47 years after he left office.

3. President George W. Bush in 2002 issued an executive order that “effectively rewrote the Presidential Records Act, converting it from a measure guaranteeing public access to one that blocks it,” as law professor Jonathan Turley noted. Congress overturned parts of that order in 2014.

4. Obama White House lawyers repeatedly invoked the Presidential Records Act to “delay the release of thousands of pages of records from President Bill Clinton’s White House,” Politico reported.

5. At the end of his presidency, Barack Obama trucked 30 million pages of his administration’s records to Chicago, promising to digitize them and eventually put them online by January 20, 2022, upon the 5-year point after his leaving office. As of July 18, 2025, the National Archives Web page reveals that only 611 pages have been digitized and disclosed.

Despite all of these examples of past Presidents utilizing the PRA before Trump, none of them have ever faced criminal prosecution for the mishandling of documents. However, the closest we have gotten to a potential second prosecution was none other than the President of the previous Administration and Trump’s main opponent in the first half of the 2024 election cycle: President Joe Biden.

Joe Biden’s Classified Documents Investigation

In November of 2022, it was discovered that there were classified documents at the Penn Biden Center, University of Delaware, and at Biden’s own home. On January 12, 2023, AG Garland appointed Robert Hur as Special Counsel to oversee the United States Department of Justice's investigation into President Joe Biden's alleged mishandling of classified documents during his time as Vice President. Finally, on February 8, 2024, the Justice Department released the report by Special Counsel Hur stating that Biden was guilty of mishandling classified documents in various locations while Vice President. However, Biden did not face Federal prosecution, or be held formally accountable under the same statute as President Trump, because he was deemed to be too senile to testify.

Hur immediately addressed this in his report’s Executive Summary:

“Our investigation uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen. These materials included (1) marked classified documents about military and foreign policy in Afghanistan, and (2) notebooks containing Mr. Biden's handwritten entries about issues of national security and foreign policy implicating sensitive intelligence sources and methods.” (pg.1)

The Special Counsel addressed in his Report the historical precedent of Presidents and their handling of records:

Historically, after leaving office, many former presidents and vice presidents have knowingly taken home sensitive materials related to national security from their administrations without being charged with crimes. This historical record is an important context for judging whether and why to charge a former vice president—and former president, as Mr. Biden would be when susceptible to prosecution—for similar actions taken by several of his predecessors.

With one exception, there is no record of the Department of Justice prosecuting a former president or vice president for mishandling classified documents from his own administration. The exception is former President Trump. It is not our role to assess the criminal charges pending against Mr. Trump, but several material distinctions between Mr. Trump's case and Mr. Biden's are clear. Unlike the evidence involving Mr. Biden, the allegations set forth in the indictment of Mr. Trump, if proven, would present serious aggravating facts.” (pgs. 10-11).

The Hur Report then goes on to address how Biden’s ghostwriter deleted files after special counsel was appointed. It is important to note that he has not been charged with destruction of evidence or obstruction of justice. By comparison, two Mar-a-Lago employees have been charged with obstruction for MOVING BOXES:

“Mr. Biden's ghostwriter and destruction of evidence. After learning of the special counsel's appointment in this matter, Mr. Biden's ghostwriter deleted audio recordings he had created of his discussions with Mr. Biden during the writing of Mr. Biden's 2017 memoir. The recordings had significant evidentiary value.

After telling the Special Counsel's Office what he had done, the ghostwriter turned over his computer and external hard drive and consented to their search. Based on the FBI's analysis, it appears the FBI recovered all deleted audio files relating to the memoir, though portions of a few of the files appear to be missing, which is possible when forensic tools are used to recover deleted files. The ghost writer kept, and did not delete or attempt to delete, his near-verbatim transcripts of the recordings and produced those transcripts to us, including for each of the incomplete recovered files.

We considered whether to charge the ghostwriter with obstruction of justice, but we believed the evidence would be insufficient to obtain a conviction and therefore declined to prosecute him.

While the ghostwriter admitted that he deleted the recordings after he learned of the special counsel's investigation, the evidence falls short of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to impede an investigation, which is the intent required by law. In his interviews, the ghostwriter offered plausible, innocent reasons for why he deleted the recordings. He also preserved his transcripts that contain some of the most incriminating information against Mr. Biden—including his statement about finding "all the classified stuff downstairs" in 2017—which is inconsistent with an intent to impede an investigation by destroying evidence. And the ghostwriter voluntarily produced his notes and the devices from which the recordings were recovered.” (pgs. 12-13)

Based on the findings from the Hur Report, one could conclude that Joe Biden’s handling of classified documents was far worse than Donald Trump’s. Biden, as vice president, routinely took classified files and failed to return them, including Top Secret, Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) documents. For example, in August 2010, he did not return classified briefing book contents after a trip to the Hamptons. His staff struggled to retrieve these materials, and despite a 2010 briefing on protocol, Biden continued to leave classified documents unattended at the Naval Observatory and his Delaware home. After leaving office, Biden retained and disclosed classified materials as a private citizen, including documents on Afghanistan’s military and foreign policy and notebooks with sensitive intelligence-related entries. These materials were stored insecurely at multiple locations, including his Wilmington, Delaware home (garage, offices, basement den), the Penn Biden Center, and the University of Delaware.

Then there is the aspect of the volume and what still remains of the documents, that have not been deleted, that are evidence in Biden’s investigation. Biden retained 18 Top Secret and 36 Secret documents, compared to Trump’s 21 Top Secret and 9 Secret documents, yet Trump faces charges for willful retention while Biden does not. Furthermore, Biden’s ghostwriter, Mark Zwonitzer, deleted dozens of hours of recorded interviews containing evidence of Biden’s knowledge of classified materials (e.g., Biden’s 2017 statement about finding “classified stuff downstairs”). Despite the evidentiary value, Hur declined to prosecute Zwonitzer.

Third, there is the comparison of the location of Biden’s classified documents versus Trump’s at Mar-a-lago. There was a major national security risk due to the unsecure storage of Biden’s documents. Biden’s classified documents were stored haphazardly, scattered across his residence and other locations, increasing the risk of loss or compromise. Hur even testified to Congress re-confirming his findings that Biden’s documents were located at the Penn Biden Center, Biden’s Delaware home, the University of Delaware, and the Biden Institute. In contrast, Trump’s documents were kept in a storage room at Mar-a-Lago, a property with Secret Service protection, security cameras, and private guards. While still not a secure facility, at minimum the documents were at least securely controlled.

Lastly there is the blatant double-standard initiated here by the justice system. Trump cooperated extensively with the National Archives and DOJ, voluntarily turning over documents and allowing searches, yet faced an FBI raid and charges. Biden’s team conducted their own searches without oversight, starting in May 2022, and faced no charges, partly due to Biden’s status as a sitting president and Hur’s assessment of his mental incapacity. The DOJ’s leniency toward Biden, contrasted with aggressive prosecution of Trump, exemplifies a biased justice system. Biden’s aides, some with unknown security clearances, handled classified materials without scrutiny, while Trump’s aides face charges for lesser allegations.

All of these arguments were the strongest defense Christopher Kise made on behalf of Trump’s legal team. Now the stage is set for the major proceedings to follow.

---

The Timeline of the Pre-Trial Trial

An official court trial never occurred for Trump’s classified document case. However, what did occur was several major pre-trial proceedings throughout 2024. With the help of Judge Cannon’s judicial integrity in applying the law rather than applying it subjectively, what unfolded in the discovery portion of those hearings completely changed the whole narrative of the entire case against Trump.

March 6 - March 14, 2024

Following the February 22nd motions filed by Christopher Kise to dismiss Trump’s indictment, Judge Cannon formally accepted two of the four amicus briefs filed by Trump's legal team, which may be of considerable help in response to Trump's motions to dismiss: The unconstitutional vagueness of the Espionage Act, and Trump’s supposed protection under the Presidential Records Act. Official oral hearings occurred on Thursday, March 14th.

As reported in the Palm Beach Courthouse by Julie Kelly, Judge Cannon hammered the fact that no former President or Vice President has been charged under Espionage Act for taking and keeping classified records including national defense information—which represents 32 counts against Trump in Jack Smith's indictment. Kelly later reported how, without saying so directly, Judge Cannon suggested that any former President or Vice President who took unauthorized records and failed to return them to the proper authority committed a crime the day he left office. Also important to note that Judge Cannon, who is pretty measured in comparison to most judges, made these points in a rather heated fashion. She is very aware of the double standard at play in the non-prosecution of Joe Biden.

By the late afternoon, as hearings officially concluded, Judge Cannon ordered the denying of Trump's motion to dismiss on unconstitutional vagueness of Espionage Act motion. She addressed how she thought that the motion was premature, but at the same time stated that the vagueness argument could be raised later after jury instructions on whether some of the unclear definitions should instead be resolved post-instructions. More Specifically, Judge Cannon wants clarification as to how the DOJ struggled to provide clear definitions for "unauthorized," "willfully," as well as what gave them the office/authority "entitled to receive them." Here is an excerpt of her motion of the dismissal without prejudice:

"Although the Motion raises various arguments warranting serious consideration, the Court ultimately determines, following lengthy oral argument, that resolution of the overall question presented depends too greatly on contested instructional questions about still-fluctuating definitions of statutory terms/phrases as charged, along with at least some disputed factual issues as raised in the Motion.

For that reason, rather than prematurely decide now whether application of 18 U.S.C. § 793(e) in these circumstances yields unsalvageable vagueness despite the asserted judicial glosses, the Court elects to deny the Motion without prejudice, to be raised as appropriate in connection with jury-instruction briefing and/or other appropriate motions."

What is interesting is that based on Judge Cannon's references to "arbitrary enforcement" and lack of historical precedent in charging presidents/VPs with Espionage Act—she is likely to dismiss the case on selective prosecution grounds. Julie Kelly has a great article explaining, in detail, the significance of Judge Cannon’s acknowledgement of the arbitrary enforcement.

April 4, 2024

On Thursday April 4th, Judge Cannon filed another Court Order denying Trump’s motion to dismiss the superseding indictment based on the Presidential Records Act (PRA). Judge Cannon’s reasoning is because Counts 1 through 32 follow the language and requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 793(e), the Espionage Act, which makes it illegal to have “unauthorized possession” of national defense documents and fail to return them. These counts do not mention the PRA or rely on it to define the crime. Similarly, Counts 33 through 38, 40, and 41 align with the legal requirements of their respective statutes (18 U.S.C. §§ 1001, 1512, 1519) for obstruction and false statements. The Superseding Indictment is detailed, including interview excerpts, photos, and other evidence, making it a “speaking indictment.” Accepting the indictment’s allegations as true, the PRA does not provide a basis to dismiss the case under Rule 12(b)(3)(B)(v), as all counts properly state offenses.

What is interesting though is in that same Order, Judge Cannon also addresses the Special Counsel’s jury instruction demand ahead of the trial. In the final paragraph she states:

Separately, to the extent the Special Counsel demands an anticipatory finalization of jury instructions prior to trial, prior to a charge conference, and prior to the presentation of trial defenses and evidence, the Court declines that demand as unprecedented and unjust [see ECF No. 428]. The Court’s Order soliciting preliminary draft instructions on certain counts should not be misconstrued as declaring a final definition on any essential element or asserted defense in this case. Nor should it be interpreted as anything other than what it was: a genuine attempt, in the context of the upcoming trial, to better understand the parties’ competing positions and the questions to be submitted to the jury in this complex case of first impression [ECF No. 407]. As always, any party remains free to avail itself of whatever appellate options it sees fit to invoke, as permitted by law.

In this part, Judge Cannon responds to the Special Counsel’s push to have her decide right away how the PRA might be explained to the jury at trial. The Special Counsel requested that the court finalize jury instructions before the trial, specifically regarding the PRA’s role, but Judge Cannon calls this demand “unprecedented and unjust.” She clarifies that her earlier request for draft jury instructions was not a final decision on any legal issue or defense but rather an attempt to understand both sides’ positions in this complex, first-of-its-kind case. She emphasizes that any party can appeal her decisions if they choose, as allowed by law.

April 22 - May 7, 2024

During this time of the proceedings, Judge Cannon ordered several bombshell unsealing and unredacting of court filings that completely change the entire perspective on Trump’s criminal case

The April 22nd Bombshell Unredactions

On April 22nd, after Trump’s Defense filed 22 DOJ and NARA Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests , Trump’s attorney Christopher Kise filed a motion to Compel Discovery of what they believed was key evidence that will exonerate President Trump. These documents, though originally heavily redacted by the Special Counsel under FOIA rules, were ordered by Judge Cannon to face near full unsealment. Here are side-by-side images of the redactions versus the unsealment.

On the left: What DOJ/Jack Smith wanted to conceal. (above)

On the right: Proof of collaboration by the Biden White House and the NARA to concoct a case against Trump (pg. 5).

This section above of the unsealment (pg. 6) revealed that The Biden White House and DOJ were intimately involved in developing a criminal case against Trump for records mismanagement--it appears the first go-around related to alleged "destruction" of government papers. Also contrary to public and legal assertions, the NARA was working with the DOJ/White House to craft a criminal referral by Sept. 2021—FIVE MONTHS before the "official" referral by NARA to the DOJ in Feb 2022.

In this same section it was revealed that one of Biden's top White House lawyers conspired with NARA attorney Stern to circumvent laws related to notification of the holder of records (Trump) under Presidential Records Act.

Had it not been for Judge Cannon’s Order, this incriminating evidence of the Biden Administration and DOJ running the investigative show behind the scenes would have been buried, maybe forever. This unsealed section revealed that the DOJ told NARA what to do to cover their tracks (pg. 8).

This unsealment event revealed that Biden’s Department of Energy (DOE) was involved in the coverup. DOE discovered, after Smith handed down his indictment, that Trump had an active security clearance—so they retroactively terminated it (pg. 39).

A separate FOIA document from the Discovery Motion within Exhibit 10 pages 48-49, revealed the assessment made by the NARA, where they confirmed within 24 hours of receiving the 15 boxes from Mar-a-Lago. In their assessment, it is clearly concluded that the NARA found only personal documents OR those covered by the PRA.

A more detailed analysis on this unsealment was written by Julie Kelly for Real Clear Investigations.

May 3rd – The Day “The Photo” Was Exposed

The above image’s formal title is Exhibit F. Remember this infamous picture? The one that was the supposed damning “evidence” image showed colored sheets representing scary classification levels attached to files purportedly discovered in Trump’s private office seized by the FBI? Well, now we have proof that this was a photo doctored by the FBI.

In another Julie Kelly exclusive, we now have proof, thanks to new disclosures in Special Counsel Jack Smith's case against Donald Trump, that the FBI tampered with evidence to create the infamous photo—and the DOJ has lied about it for nearly two years.

Jay Bratt, who was the lead DOJ prosecutor on the investigation at the time and now is assigned to Smith’s team, described the photo this way in his August 30, 2022 response to Trump’s special master lawsuit:

“[Thirteen] boxes or containers contained documents with classification markings, and in all, over one hundred unique documents with classification markings…were seized. Certain of the documents had colored cover sheets indicating their classification status. (Emphasis added.) See, e.g., Attachment F (redacted FBI photograph of certain documents and classified cover sheets recovered from a container in the ‘45 office’).”

This did not offer a straight answer as to the origin of how the cover sheets got there in the first place. In what must be considered not only an act of doctoring evidence but willfully misleading the American people into believing the former president is a criminal and threat to national security, agents involved in the raid attached the cover sheets to at least seven files to stage the photo. Kelly then goes on to address how not only were the classified cover sheets not “recovered” in the container, contrary to Bratt’s declaration to the court, but also after being busted recently by defense attorneys for mishandling evidence in the case, Bratt had to fess up about how the cover sheets actually ended up on the documents. This is a quote from Bratt’s new version of the story, confessing to a critical detail that he failed to disclose in his August 2022 filing:

“[If] the investigative team for on-site review, and if the investigative team found a document with classification markings, it removed the document, segregated it, and replaced it with a placeholder sheet. The investigative team used classified cover sheets for that purpose…”

Kelly highlights that Bratt misled Judge Aileen Cannon in April 2023 by claiming the boxes were in their original form, except for placeholders, when later filings admitted discrepancies in their condition. She then questions the authority and expertise of FBI agents in determining classification levels on-site, noting that Bratt later said a formal classification review was still underway, suggesting the initial assessments may have been hasty or inaccurate.

Kelly also points out how the FBI's mishandling of evidence—specifically, inaccuracies in matching placeholder sheets to documents and discrepancies in the arrangement of items in the seized boxes—undermines the integrity of the evidence and could jeopardize the Special Counsel's case against Trump. She argues that these errors, admitted by prosecutor Jay Bratt, suggest potential incompetence or deliberate misconduct, raising doubts about the reliability of the classified documents' handling and the validity of the espionage charges against Trump.

The May 7th Indefinite Postponement

As a result of the newly unsealed discoveries, President Trump’s legal team filed an exhibit in the form of a letter to the Special Counsel’s team stating the defense’s disappointment in the prosecution's failure, “…to preserve critical evidence relating to the location of documents within boxes obtained from Mar-a-Lago.” Following the filing of this exhibit, in combination with all of the discovery and disclosure matters, Judge Cannon officially ordered to postpone the original May 20th date for Trump’s document trial indefinitely.

It should be clarified though that this does not mean Trump’s trial is dismissed. As explained by Julie Kelly, Judge Cannon did still schedule a number of additional pre-trial proceedings that could be considered a way to put the Department of Justice—more specifically Jack Smith—on trial. Over the next several weeks, prosecutors would be forced to publicly counter defense motions that accuse the DOJ of selective and vindictive prosecution; insist the appointment of Smith is illegal; and claims that several parties, including Joe Biden’s White House, colluded behind the scenes as early as May 2021 to concoct the unprecedented case.

May 21, 2024 – The Day the FBI was Exposed for their Raid

This date of the proceedings is, in my opinion, the most terrifying discovery that has been revealed in the Classified Documents: The FBI authorized the use of Deadly Force on the Mar-a-Lago raid.

An exhibit filed by Donald Trump in a motion to suppress evidence from the FBI’s August 2022 raid of Mar-a-Lago reveals shocking new details. According to the filing, the FBI had plans to use deadly force if necessary and was prepared to engage the former president and his security detail. These details are outlined on page 4 of the motion:

In another piece of evidence from Exhibits 3-4, even more damning evidence is revealed such as follows. For example, one section of the plan described how agents should handle the potential for use of deadly force:

Armed FBI agents were preparing to confront Trump and even to engage the Secret Service if necessary. They were going to go door-to-door to terrorize Mar-a-Lago guests, even going so far as to pick the locks to locked rooms:

The FBI even had a medic on the scene and identified a local trauma center for anyone "injured" during the raid:

Let this be a reminder to everyone that it was AG Garland that signed off on the FBI Raid on Mar-a-Lago.

June 25, 2024

In a bombshell confession, Special Counsel Jack Smith admitted that the FBI added cover sheets to alleged classified documents found at Mar-a-Lago and took photos for evidence, officially confirming what Julie Kelly reported a month prior about the doctored photo. On page 10 he makes the following admission of guilt:

As part of the processing of seized documents marked classified, ERT photographed the documents (with appropriate cover sheets added by FBI personnel) next to the box in which they were located. The photographs attached as Exhibit 8 are examples.

What is interesting is that when reading further into the document, we can observe a slight shift in the DOJ’s & FBI’s narrative. FBI agents allegedly found "loose classified cover sheets" in a blue leatherbound box in Trump's office. Then suddenly, some were attached to classified documents. The FBI brought colored classified cover sheets to the raid under the guise of using them to substitute classified documents found within Trump's boxes. Instead, FBI agents attached the incendiary cover sheets to various files and took photos.

July 1 - July 15 2024

July 1st – The Day of the Immunity Ruling

On July 1, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 6-3 in the landmark Trump v. United States (2024) declaring that current and former Presidents are entitled to various forms of immunity for their official acts throughout their term as President. The whole reason that the Supreme Court case came to light was because of Trump’s other Federal indictment—also by Jack Smith—regarding Trump’s election obstruction case. However, in Justice Clarence Thomas’s Concurring Opinion (pg. 52 - 60), he specifically addressed the issue of Jack Smith’s Special Counsel appointment, which had major implications for Trump’s Classified Documents case. Justice Thomas summarizes it clearly by stating:

No former President has faced criminal prosecution for his acts while in office in the more than 200 years since the founding of our country. And, that is so despite numerous past Presidents taking actions that many would argue constitute crimes. If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people. The lower courts should thus answer these essential questions concerning the Special Counsel’s appointment before proceeding.

Justice Thomas further questions whether the Special Counsel's office has been properly created by Congress. He highlights the constitutional requirement in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, which states that offices must be "established by Law" before they can be filled. He asserts that no statute clearly creates the office of the Special Counsel (p. 2-3 of the opinion). He references several statutes cited by the Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C. §§509, 510, 515, and 533, but argues that none of these explicitly create the Special Counsel's office with the clarity typical of past statutes that have established similar positions (p. 56-57). Thomas also emphasizes that the Attorney General appointed a "private citizen" as Special Counsel to prosecute a former President, which raises significant constitutional concerns. By emphasizing the fact that a private citizen cannot hold an office or exercise prosecutorial power under the Constitution without clear authorization by law, Thomas raises a critical point: if the Special Counsel was appointed without proper legal authority, then his actions could be unconstitutional and invalid.

July 5th - July 15th: The Case is Closed

In the days following the Immunity ruling, President Trump’s defense team officially filed a new motion for Judge Cannon to review the newly recognized judicial precedent established by the Supreme Court, specifically addressing the Court recognizing the unconstitutional appointment of Jack Smith.

As a result, Judge Cannon filed an official motion of dismissal of the entire case, ruling that Jack Smith’s appointment as Special Counsel was indeed a violation of the Appointments Clause. The prosecution’s lead attorney Jay Bratt would file an appeal of the dismissal two days later on July 17th.

---

The Aftermath & Reflections on the Case

Following Donald Trump’s re-election victory on November 5, 2024, the DOJ chose to wind down the case because of their long-standing policy standard to neither indict, nor criminally prosecute a sitting President. The DOJ abandoned its appeal regarding Trump on November 26th, and would later do it again for Trump’s co-defendants on January 29, 2025. Then, on February 28, 2025, President Trump announced that the DOJ has officially returned the boxes that were seized from him in the 2022 raid and that they will become part of his future Presidential Library.

This case, once touted as a cornerstone of accountability, unraveled under the weight of its own contradictions—exposing not just procedural flaws, but also a deeper crisis in the soul of American justice. What began as a spectacle of FBI raids and ominous charges under the Espionage Act ended with a quiet acknowledgment that the pursuit was, at its core, politically charged overreach. Yet, the true legacy of this saga lies not in its courtroom denouement but in the questions it forces us to confront about power, trust, and the fragility of impartiality.

The revelations of evidence tampering, unauthorized referrals, and institutional collusion painted a chilling portrait of a system bending under partisan pressure. When FBI agents staged photos with colored cover sheets to amplify the perception of Trump’s guilt, they didn’t just undermine a case—they eroded the public’s faith in the machinery of justice. The contrast with Joe Biden’s unprosecuted mishandling of classified documents, excused by a narrative of senility, laid bare a troubling truth: the law is not a monolith but a malleable tool, wielded selectively by those in power. This case revealed how easily the veneer of legality can mask vendettas, raising the specter of a republic where justice serves as a weapon rather than a shield.

Reflecting on this, one cannot help but wonder: Why would the Government of the United States go as far as they did to set up and go after a former President? Why use deadly force if they are merely returning documents? Were the documents even meant to be classified? There are theories that Jack Smith’s investigation was merely a coverup for the FBI’s true intentions of the raid. The case’s dismissal, driven by Judge Cannon’s adherence to constitutional principles and bolstered by the Supreme Court’s scrutiny of unchecked prosecutorial power, offers a glimmer of hope that checks and balances can still prevail.

This case, as with all of the other ones covered in the Lawfare Files, prove that it did not matter how many indictments, counts, or statutes the prosecutors claimed Donald Trump violated. None of them ever had a solid case against him, and it is highly expected that all of the remaining cases will be dismissed on appeal in Trump’s favor. One way or another, every lie will be revealed, and the truth will prevail in the end.

This article marks an official wrap to the Lawfare Files series. The goal of this series was never just to defend President Trump’s innocence, but also to serve as an opportunity to reflect how far elements in our own government will go to stop political opponents with sufficient political influence from gaining office, especially when the political opponent contradicts the will of the Establishment and instead reflects the will of the people. Donald Trump ran on the fact that he wanted to end politicized weaponization of the Government, and that only people in power that genuinely break the law are the ones who deserve to be held accountable. It is only up to “we the people” to hold the feet to fire towards everyone in power, including Trump, by guaranteeing that there will never again be another ordeal of politicized exploitation of the law, regardless of political ideologies or political ventures.

---

Thank you for taking the time to read! If you enjoyed it and wish to support my future work, you can tip me at this link: https://buymeacoffee.com/timelinesandheadlines

Thank you so much!

---