Call me old-school, but I still insist on printing out court filings so I can attack them with my trusty neon yellow highlighter and my ballpoint pen (blue being the preferred color) and take notes … in the margins, between the paragraphs, at the corners.
And because old habits die hard, as soon as the 38-count indictment against Donald J. Trump (and Trump aide Walt Nauta) was unsealed, I grabbed my tools and hurried to check it out.
There were four main areas that I focused on in my initial review of the indictment, outlined below.
(Scroll to the bottom for the annotated indictment.)
The players
Who are the people who are identified by name? Who are the people who aren’t? If they’re not identified by name, why not? I want to know what these people did and, if possible, what they knew. They were important enough to make it into the indictment so they must have some value, some substantive knowledge about the alleged crimes.
I was startled at how the indictment is replete with examples of obstructive conduct by both Nauta and Trump.
Here’s a great example in Paragraph 52: We know that “Trump Attorney 1” is Evan Corcoran. And “Trump Attorney 3” is Christina Bobb. But who’s “Trump Attorney 2”? I personally think it’s Boris Epshteyn. (Of course, I could be wrong.) As more filings become public, we will see if my hypothesis proves to be correct. Regardless, figuring out who fits in where helps make the story make sense.
Proof of Trump’s knowledge/intent and obstruction
Trump’s knowledge and intent is critical in this prosecution. What did Trump know about the declassification process? Did he know what would happen if he were to keep classified documents in his possession after he left the Oval Office? Was Trump aware that he was in possession of classified documents after he became the former president of the United States?
Donald Trump is set to appear in court on Tuesday at 3 p.m. ET. Follow our live blog for the latest updates and analysis in his classified documents case.
The indictment makes it clear that not only did Trump know what he was doing was wrong, he went to great lengths to make sure he was able to keep classified documents that did not belong to him.
I also wanted to learn how Nauta, the co-defendant, allegedly conspired with Trump to obstruct the federal government in its investigation and I was startled at how the indictment is replete with examples of obstructive conduct by both Nauta and Trump.
Trump is charged as the sole defendant in counts 1 through 31 with willful retention of national defense information. The accompanying table setting forth the classified documents at issue in this case is stunning in its gravity — and terrifying when you consider the extent of the harm perpetrated at the hands of Trump. The table answered questions about the nature of the classified documents that Trump illegally retained, such as the “nuclear capabilities” of foreign countries, as well as “military capabilities [of foreign countries] and the United States.” I wanted to determine how special counsel Jack Smith was justifying 31 counts, which was evident when you see that each count relates to a specific offense date involving a document with a relevant classification marking. As a legal contributor, when I am analyzing a criminal case, one of the first questions I am always asked is: “How much jail will the defendant get?” In order to answer that question, I usually look at the specific statutes that have been charged in the indictment, figure out the level/degree of offense, and then determine the range of incarceration. In this indictment, though, the special counsel has done all of us a solid and provided a penalty sheet that begins on page 46 that clearly explains, for each offense, the maximum amount of federal prison time, as well as the maximum length of supervised release and fines. Reviewing the possible penalties is informative as it reveals that a crime like conspiracy to obstruct justice actually carries a greater term of imprisonment (20 years) than the offense of willful retention of national defense information (10 years). My colleague Jordan Rubin explains how sentencing guidelines will impact any potential prison sentence for Trump. After I do my first run-through of the indictment, I’ll continue to go back to my notes to either add to them, update or correct them. Read my annotations of the full indictment here: Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Blog newsletter for weekly updates on the top legal stories, including news from the Supreme Court, the Donald Trump investigations and more.
Katie S. Phang
Katie S. Phang is the host of "The Katie Phang Show," which airs Saturdays at 12 p.m. ET on MSNBC. She is a legal contributor for NBC News and MSNBC based in Miami. She leverages her significant trial attorney experience to provide analysis and commentary on the latest legal issues.
Latest Post
Recommended
The classified documents at issue
Trump’s exposure
