Ryan Goodman Profile picture
Aug 31, 2022 15 tweets 7 min read Read on X
Key in the DOJ brief are new revelations of facts that go to the core of Trump's criminal liability.

Fact-1: Trump never claimed the documents were declassified.

End of story on that attempted defense or attempt to deter prosecutors from indicting (as a discretionary factor).
2. Looks like Justice Department has one or more people dead to rights on obstruction, 18 USC 1519.

These newly revealed facts also goes to 18 USC 402 (disobeying the GJ subpoena).

@AWeissmann_ has identified 402 as potentially easiest road to an indictment for MAL.

Plus...
3. Plus these passages on obstruction directly implicate Trump's lawyers in the alleged crimes.

That's NOT going to play out well for Trump if DOJ follows past practice.

I discussed in earlier thread how prosecutors could put the lawyers on the stand.👇
4. There it is. In black and white.

The false certification by Trump's lawyers on June 3.

Note the yellow highlights (mine) that point directly to trouble for Donald Trump - for obstruction and concealment.
5. In another passage about June 3 retrieval of classified documents, DOJ states:

Yet again, never a peep by Trump's side with any claim that he had declassified the documents.

Plus Trump counsel's actions suggested they believed the docs were classified.
6. Hard to keep track of all the false statements by Trump's counsel to the Department of Justice/FBI!

Here are more:

- that all records from the White House were stored in one location
- that there were no records in Trump's office space
7. New facts: June 3 search turned up (based on FBI preliminary review):

38 documents with classification markings
16 SECRET
17 TOP SECRET

Including "markings reflecting sensitive compartments and dissemination controls" -- indicating government's most highly guarded secrets.
8. This line points directly at Donald Trump.

In August 8 search, classified documents were

- not simply found in MAL
- not simply found outside the storage room
- not simply found in Trump's office

but found in the desks in his office.

He needs to think about a plea deal.
9. More evidence Trump disobeyed subpoena and concealed more docs.

Recall Trump team certified on June 3 "a diligent search was conducted of the boxes that were moved from the White House to Florida."

Yet FBI found this on Aug 8👇

Including the unmissable colored cover sheets.
10. This is a powerful line, and one that a close reader has already come to think by this point.

It's incriminating that the FBI found "in a matter of hours" two times amount of docs with classified markings as Trump team had weeks to locate.

PLUS and this is a big plus...
11. Important what happens here:

June 3:
Trump team "explicitly prohibited" DOJ looking inside other boxes in storage room to see if other docs with classified markings there (p. 13).

August 8 FBI search:
FBI finds 76 docs with classified markings in same dang storage room!
12. Hats off to @AWeissmann_ who called it from the moment Trump team filed their motion with a litany of false statements.

It opened the door for DOJ to publicly correct the record in Response brief.

Trump's legal team, and their client, again with self-inflicted wounds.
13. Yep.👇

@ryanjreilly: "The passports themselves, and their location, are very good evidence that Trump unlawfully retained national defense information."

Active passports in same drawer as classified docs. Prosecutors could even note that at trial.
14. Keyword: comingled

When Trump/his lawyers say the FBI also took some personal belongings, remember:

That's apparently because it was comingled with classified docs and thus likely EVIDENCE he was willfully retaining the classified materials!

15. I'll end with this fine point by @waltshaub:

"If the FBI found these documents in your home, you would go to jail."

Now imagine being found with over 300 of these classified documents (and the first 100 documents totaling more than 700 pages)!

<end>

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Ryan Goodman

Ryan Goodman Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @rgoodlaw

Oct 6
What was the real message at Quantico?

Janine Davidson (former Undersecretary of Navy and former Chair of Defense Policy Board) discusses:

The domestic paradigm shift in President Trump's addressing Active Duty military leaders with National Guard Adjunct Generals excluded.
🧵 Image
2/3 source:

Trump’s Outline of a Domestic War - The real message from Quantico
justsecurity.org/121940/trumps-…
3/3 audio version via Just Security's Out Loud series

buzzsprout.com/2509956/episod…
Read 4 tweets
Oct 6
Judge Immergut in Oregon v Trump now:

"I grant plaintiffs second motion for a TRO."

Federalized Texas and California Guard to Portland is a "DIRECT CONTRAVENTION" of court's TRO from Saturday.

Both on 12406 statute and Tenth Amendment grounds.
2/ Your reminder that Judge Immergut was appointed to the bench by President Trump.
3/ The new Temporary Restraining Order bars the deployment by the Trump administration of any federalized National Guard -- eg California or Texas National Guard -- in Portland.
Read 4 tweets
Oct 2
“This is not stretching the envelope,” Geoffrey Corn said. “This is shredding it."

On Administration's confidential note to Congress

Completely right

Drug cartels not = "armed conflict"
People killed are civilians

Corn is retired JAG, Army's former law-of-war senior adviser Image
2/ source:

Trump ‘Determined’ the U.S. Is Now in a War With Drug Cartels, Congress Is Told

A notice calls the people the U.S. military recently killed on suspicion of drug smuggling “unlawful combatants.”

By @charlie_savage @EricSchmittNYT
nytimes.com/2025/10/02/us/…
@charlie_savage @EricSchmittNYT 3/ "The administration has also stressed that about 100,000 Americans annually die from overdoses.

However, the focus of the ..attacks has been boats from Venezuela. The surge of overdose deaths...has been driven by fentanyl that drug trafficking experts say comes from Mexico" Image
Read 4 tweets
Sep 25
Comey's testimony in 2020

On left:

In hearing, Senator Cruz erroneously claimed McCabe had said Comey "directly authorized" leak to press. Comey denied that.

On right:

McCabe did not say Comey authorized the leak (source: Inspector General Report, on which Cruz relies) Image
Image
2/ Grassley's question to Comey in 2017 focused on authorization.

(In 2020, Comey testified that he stands by his 2017 testimony.)

So, Comey should be able to stand on that as being truthful and consistent with McCabe's account.

Grassley: "have you ever authorized..."⤵️ Image
3/ Also note the discrepancy in Cruz's letter to DOJ making criminal referral.

On left:

At hearing, Cruz asked Comey whether he was aware AND authorized the leak

On right:

Cruz letter to DOJ falsely frames it as Comey testifying he NEITHER was aware NOR authorized the leak. Image
Image
Read 4 tweets
Sep 15
With terrific team, I just published large study looking at all court cases involving the Trump administration.

Shows basis for courts no longer giving a so-called "presumption of regularity" (a legal doctrine involving a strong benefit of the doubt) to the administration.
🧵 Image
2/ source

The “Presumption of Regularity” in Trump Administration Litigation
justsecurity.org/120547/presump…
3/ We document over 15 cases in which judges have explicitly found the administration violated a court order.

Below are some of the very-strong statements by judges.
justsecurity.org/120547/presump…Image
Read 5 tweets
Sep 3
1/ I worked at DoD. I literally cannot imagine lawyers coming up with a legal basis for lethal strike of suspected Venezuelan drug boat.

Hard to see how this would not be "murder" or war crime under international law that DoD considers applicable.

Read this expert analysis⤵️ Image
2/ The author of the expert analysis worked at the State Department under several administrations with these types of use of force issues as his portfolio.

justsecurity.org/119982/legal-i…
3/ The best line of argument for the administration might be that the law of armed conflict somehow applies.

But if so (and it doesn't), that means the US War Crimes Act applies too, including the prohibition on murder.

Finucane spells out that implication here: Image
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(