top of page

Trump's Get Out of Jail Free Card

Jesse Saunders

11 June 2023

Confidential Documents Scandal: How Trump and his team can make this all go away.

They indicted Donald Trump again and here is the defense most of the media and most legal pundits seems to be missing. The objective of this article is to shed light on the complexities surrounding the interpretation of the law, including a previous ruling by a judge appointed during the Obama administration, which addressed the discretion of former presidents in determining the status of personal and presidential documents.

This narrative traces its origins back to the tenure of Bill Clinton, during which he recorded conversations with foreign leaders over the course of eight years. These recordings, highly classified and covering critical subjects such as war, national security strategy, and nuclear posture, found their place of storage in a sock drawer at Clinton's residence in Chappaqua. Legal organization Judicial Watch pursued access to these presidential records, only to face a verdict from an Obama-appointed judge who deemed the tapes as Bill Clinton's personal property, thereby prohibiting their release to anyone, including Judicial Watch or the National Archives.

The judge's decision emphasized that during a president's term, it is the president's prerogative, and theirs alone, to distinguish personal materials from official presidential records. Given the president's absolute authority in managing and disposing of these records, it becomes challenging for the court to infer that Congress intended to impose limitations on the president's control over what they consider their personal records.

Thus, the matter at hand is resolved. Former presidents possess exclusive discretion to determine the nature of personal records, whether they pertain to recordings involving foreign leaders or documents associated with their interactions. In Donald Trump's case, he has the right to review these records and choose which ones he considers personal or presidential, subsequently returning the selected materials to the archives. Consequently, the issue of classification holds no relevance in this particular context.

As presidents transition out of office, they retain certain documents, while others find their way to the archives or remain stored at presidential offices or libraries. This process occurs routinely with every presidential transition and has never before escalated into a raid or criminal proceedings until the current Biden administration. Curiously, the Biden administration seeks to imprison Donald Trump for a century, despite the absence of allegations regarding war initiation, bribery, treason, or collusion with adversaries. Trump finds himself treated as if he were a drug trafficker or a murderer, all due to a disagreement over the handling of presidential records.

Although Joe Biden vehemently denies involvement in the case and endeavors to distance himself from it, it is important to note that he personally authorized the raid, and his selected attorney general is leading the charge. The media may attempt to portray Biden as detached from the case, but the truth reveals a different story. The entire situation raises suspicions of a cover-up.

It is pertinent to question the reasoning behind charging Trump with obstruction for a crime he allegedly did not commit when Hillary Clinton notoriously destroyed iPhones with a hammer and erased 30,000 emails, and Obama's CIA director, David Petraeus, handed classified documents to his partner without facing incarceration. In contrast, Biden himself has been captured on camera confessing to a crime, yet no consequences seem to follow.

This blatant double standard cannot be overlooked, suggesting that the Biden administration may be targeting Trump in an effort to prevent him from posing a competitive threat in future elections. However, this strategy is unlikely to succeed, and it is imperative for the American public to remain vigilant against potential deception and manipulation.

bottom of page