‘He’s got it backwards’: Trump lawyer’s Mar-a-Lago docs claims torched by CNN legal analyst

A key Trump lawyer’s claim about the former president’s right to retain classified information at his Mar-a-Lago resort is completely reversed from how the law actually works, argued former federal prosecutor Elie Honig on CNN Thursday.

Honig’s explanation came in response to host Sara Sidner discussing her interview with attorney Jim Trusty the previous evening, where they argued over Trump’s repeated claim that he can declassify anything he wants and take it from the National Archives just by thinking about it.

“Let’s look at the Presidential Records Act and what it actually says,” said Sidner. “It says ‘The United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of presidential records,’ and under federal law, willfully removing any record or document carries the possibility of a three-year prison sentence. We went — we looked it up, as journalists do. And nowhere does it say you can mentally just think about it and they are declassified.”

“You’ve packed so many misstatements into one question or whatever it was,” said Trusty. “The Presidential Records Act does not have a criminal enforcement component to itself. Look at it again.”

IN OTHER NEWS: Marjorie Taylor Greene: Calling me a white supremacist is like ‘calling a person of color the N-word’

“Is he right?” Sidner asked Honig. “There’s no way to criminally prosecute this? There’s no enforcement component?”

“He’s wrong on a couple respects,” said Honig. “There is an enforcement component. The Act does include some of the crimes listed by DOJ in the Mar-a-Lago search warrant. The other thing is, Mr. Trusty, who I used to work with at DOJ, not closely, he has it backwards. What the Act says is, presumptively, any White House or presidential records belong to the government, the American public. If you’re a president or former president, and you want to claim some of those as your own or restrict access, you can try to do that, and here’s the process. But he seems to say they belong to the president as an individual or human being, and if the government is lucky, they get some.”

Watch the video below or at this link.


Elie Honig debunks Jim Trusty’s reading of the Presidential Records Act

www.youtube.com

Related articles

‘Something dark might be coming’: Senator issues ominous Trump warning after Kirk killing



A Democratic US senator over the weekend issued an ominous warning about Republicans using the murder of Charlie Kirk as a pretext to clamp down on political speech.

In a lengthy social media post on Sunday, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) outlined how President Donald Trump and his allies look set to wage a campaign of retribution against political adversaries by framing them as accomplices in Kirk’s murder.

“Pay attention,” he began. “Something dark might be coming. The murder of Charlie Kirk could have united Americans to confront political violence. Instead, Trump and his anti-democratic radicals look to be readying a campaign to destroy dissent.”

Murphy then contrasted the recent statements by Republican Utah Gov. Spencer Cox, who accurately stated that political violence is not confined to a single political ideology, with those of Trump and his allies, who have said such violence is only a problem on the left.

Murphy highlighted a statement from Trump ally and informal adviser Laura Loomer, who said that she wanted “Trump to be the ‘dictator’ the left thinks he is” and that she wanted “the right to be as devoted to locking up and silencing our violent political enemies as they pretend we are.”

He then pointed to Trump, saying that progressive billionaire financier George Soros should face racketeering charges even though there is no evidence linking Soros to Kirk’s murder or any other kind of political violence.

“The Trump/Loomer/Miller narrative that Dems are cheering Kirk’s murder or that left groups are fomenting violence is also made up,” he added. “There are always going to be online trolls, but Dem leaders are united (as opposed to Trump who continues to cheer the January 6 violence).”

Murphy claimed that the president and his allies have long been seeking a “pretext to destroy their opposition” and that Kirk’s murder gave them an opening.

“That’s why it was so important for Trump sycophants to take over the DoJ and FBI, so that if a pretext arose, Trump could orchestrate a dizzying campaign to shut down political opposition groups and lock up or harass its leaders,” he said. “This is what could be coming—now.”

Early in his second term, the president fired FBI prosecutors who were involved in an earlier political violence case—the prosecution of people involved in the violent attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021 by Trump supporters who aimed to stop the certification of the 2020 election.

A top ethics official and a lawyer who spoke out against the president’s anti-immigration policy are among those who have been fired from the DOJ.

Murphy ended his post with a call for action from supporters.

“I hope I’m wrong. But we need to be prepared if I’m right,” he said. “That means everyone who cares about democracy has to join the fight—right now. Join a mobilization or protest group. Start showing up to actions more. Write a check to a progressive media operation.”

One day after Murphy’s warning, columnist Karen Attiah announced that she had been fired from The Washington Post over social media posts in the wake of Kirk’s death that were critical of his legacy but in no way endorsed or celebrated any form of political violence.

“The Post accused my measured Bluesky posts of being ‘unacceptable,’ ‘gross misconduct,’ and of endangering the physical safety of colleagues—charges without evidence, which I reject completely as false,” she explained. “They rushed to fire me without even a conversation. This was not only a hasty overreach, but a violation of the very standards of journalistic fairness and rigor the Post claims to uphold.”

Attiah only directly referenced Kirk once in her posts and said she had condemned the deadly attack on him “without engaging in excessive, false mourning for a man who routinely attacked Black women as a group, put academics in danger by putting them on watch lists, claimed falsely that Black people were better off in the era of Jim Crow, said that the Civil Rights Act was a mistake, and favorably reviewed a book that called liberals ‘Unhumans.‘”