The news is by your side.

A simple test

World
0

Two weeks ago, a federal judge sentenced Robert Birchum, a former Air Force lieutenant colonel, to three years in prison for removing hundreds of classified documents from their authorized locations and storing them in his home and officers’ quarters.

In April, a judge sentenced Jeremy Brown, a former member of the US Special Forces, to more than seven years in prison, in part because he brought home a secret report after he retired. The report contained sensitive information, including about an informant in another country.

In 2018, Nghia Hoang Pho was sentenced to five and a half years in prison for storing National Security Agency documents in his home. Prosecutors stressed that Pho knew he was not supposed to take the documents.

These three recent cases are among dozens involving the Department of Justice sued people with removing classified information from the right place and trying to hide their actions. That list includes several former senior officials, such as David Petraeus and John Deutch, each of whom was in charge of the CIA

Now, of course, the list also includes Donald Trump, who was indicted yesterday in a federal courthouse in Miami pleaded not guilty to 37 charges.

Are federal prosecutors singled out Trump for his signature role in American politics? Or are they basing their decision to charge him solely on the facts of the case?

Sean Trende, a political analyst at RealClearPolitics, has provided a helpful way to understand these questions — and specifically when a former president should and should not be charged with a crime.

Start by thinking of all the other people who engaged in behavior similar to that for which the ex-president was charged with a crime. If only some of those other people were indicted, the ex-president shouldn’t be, wrote Trend. Prosecutors have a great deal of discretion over which cases to bring, and they should make the mistake of not indicting a former president because of the political turmoil it is likely to cause, he argued.

But if the ex-president did something that would accuse someone else of a crime, he should be. “The president should not be above the law,” Trende explained.

There is ample reason to believe that the documents case against Trump falls into the second category: if another American had done what he is accused of doing, that person would almost certainly be prosecuted. “The real injustice,” wrote the editors of The Economist magazine yesterday, “would have been not to sue him.”

Consider: Prosecutors have accused Trump of removing classified documents from government property and taking them home. Those documents contain sensitive information, such as military plans and intelligence about foreign armies. Trump made it clear to others that he knew he was not supposed to have the documents and took steps to mislead investigators about it, prosecutors allege.

It is true — as Trump’s defenders point out repeatedly — that other administration officials, including President Biden, Mike Pence, and Hillary Clinton, have also misused classified information without being charged with any crimes. But those cases were very different from Trump’s. The violations appeared to be accidental. The officials returned the documents when requested. They weren’t trying to mislead federal investigators.

Trump’s alleged actions instead resemble those of the obscure officials I mentioned at the top of today’s newsletter. His behavior also seems to have been much more brutal than that of Deutch and Petraeus.

This pattern helps explain why legal experts were far more supportive of the Justice Department’s charge against Trump than the New York case Accusing Trump of violating campaign finance law. The New York case has left some pundits uneasy because there was no clear precedent for it. It doesn’t seem to meet Trende’s standard for when a former president should be charged with a crime. There are no good analogies.

The New York case relies on a new combination of statutes to charge Trump with a felony for concealing payments he made to conceal a sexual encounter. Perhaps the most similar case — the trial of John Edwards, a former Democratic presidential candidate also charged with concealing payments related to an affair — ended with an acquittal on one charge and a hung jury on five others.

The list of analogies to the document charges against Trump, on the other hand, continues to grow. Next week, Kendra Kingsbury, a former FBI analyst, will be sentenced to federal prison. She pleaded guilty to bringing hundreds of classified documents to her home in Dodge City, Kan.

  • “We most certainly plead not guilty,” Todd Blanche, Trump’s attorney, told the judge during the 50-minute appearance in court. Trump did not speak.

  • Trump was fingerprinted at the courthouse, but no mug shot was taken. Officials thought it unnecessary because of his fame.

  • The judge said Trump was not allowed to discuss the matter with Walt Nauta, his personal assistant, who is also facing charges. Nauta accompanied Trump to court, but his own indictment was postponed because he does not yet have a lawyer in Florida.

  • Trump has a new nemesis: Jack Smith, the special counsel who sued him. Their paths finally crossed yesterday.

  • What’s next? “The government will begin to reveal its evidence through the discovery process,” said Alan Feuer of The Times. “Preliminary motions will be tabled and argued. All of that will probably take months.” Our colleague Maggie Haberman explained, “Trump is committed to fighting this battle in the court of public opinion for as long as possible.”

  • “Maybe Trump is waiting for a trial when voters cast their presidential ballots next fall.” Russell Berman writes in The Atlantic.

  • President Biden spent his day meeting with the Secretary General of NATO and attending a Juneteenth concert. “Anything but paying attention to Donald Trump,” wrote The Times’ Michael Shear.

  • After leaving court, Trump visited Versailles Restaurant in Miami, where customers sang “Happy Birthday” (he turns 77 today). He then traveled back to his golf club in Bedminster, NJ, telling supporters, “I did everything right and they sued me.” He showed less energy than normal during the speech.

  • Here’s one fact check of Trump’s speech.

A rapid rise: The Vegas Golden Knights are next NHL champions defeating the Florida Panthers, 9-3.

Drama in buffalo: Wide receiver Stefon Diggs was not present on the first day of the mandatory mini-camping, a disturbing sign for the bills.

Next move: Rory McIlroy was the face of the PGA Tour backlash before last week’s shocking wave merger. What now?

Gen Z debauchery: a new wave of sex comedies come to theaters this summer and revive a faded genre. The films eschew the problematic antics of old movies like “Porky’s” and “American Pie” and instead frame their raunchy fun around diverse casts and female desires, writes Leah Greenblatt.

Thank you for spending part of your morning at The Times. See you tomorrow. —David

PS We no longer include a link to the daily print front page of The Times (so we have room to include links to more stories). You can bookmark this page, which always includes an image of the front page. And you can subscribe to the print edition here.

Sign up here to receive this newsletter in your inbox. Reach our team at themorning@nytimes.com.

You might also like More from author

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.