Dan Abrams Systematically Debunks Arguments Trump Backers Have Used Against His Indictment

Mediaite founder Dan Abrams thoroughly dissected the most common arguments Donald Trump and his political and media surrogates have used to defend the former president’s indictment for mishandling classified documents.

Since the Department of Justice unsealed its federal indictment with 37 criminal counts against Trump, the former president has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing. He has also lashed out at his various political and legal opponents, and he and his allies have mounted consistent defenses while blasting the indictment.

Trump will appear in Miami federal court today for his arraignment; On Monday night, Abrams opened his NewsNation show by addressing the four “long shot” legal defenses and political bias accusations that Team Trump is running with.

1. Why Wasn’t Hillary Clinton Charged?

Many Republicans responded to the indictment by equivocating Trump’s actions with Hillary Clinton’s email controversy and complaining that she was never charged. Abrams explained that Trump is accused of a conspiracy to hide his classified documents from the FBI after receiving a subpoena, whereas the Clinton prosecutors “determined that the evidence and facts showed a ‘lack of intent to communicate classified information on unclassified systems,’ especially since ‘none of the emails Clinton received were properly marked to inform her of the classified status of the information.'”

Abrams agreed it was “wrong” of Clinton to have the server, but he emphasized that prosecutors didn’t believe they could prove the corrupt intent necessary to secure a conviction against the former secretary of state. He explained:

The inspector general concluded there was no evidence that Clinton or anyone else intended to conceal, remove or destroy the emails from government systems. As for the claim of acid washing, it’s actually just an inaccurate reference to an open-source software program that happens to be called BleachBit.

Now, if you go through every piece of evidence, as the prosecutors and the inspector general did — from the phone that was destroyed to the emails — they didn’t believe there was evidence of corrupt intent. And that is what the law requires.

And to those who say ‘Come on! Comey and the FBI clearly had it out for Trump and not for Hillary Clinton. They protected her, just as the former president said.’ The problem with that, of course, is that James Comey announced 11 days before the election that they were reopening the Clinton investigation, even though it turned out there was nothing new. And most importantly, the FBI never leaked that there was an ongoing Russia investigation of Donald Trump, which would have significantly hurt his campaign. If the FBI wanted to help Clinton and hurt Trump, you don’t announce the reopening of the Clinton investigation right before the election, and you do announce that the Trump campaign is being investigated for its contacts with the Russians. Except that’s not what happened.

2. Did Trump Declassify?

Abrams called out Trump’s “very weak” claim to have declassified the documents in his possession, but he pointed out that “it’s irrelevant in the context of this case for two reasons. First: the subpoena from May of 2022 requested all documents with classified markings, not all documents currently classified. So whether it was still classified isn’t the point.” Abrams added:

But more importantly, none of the charges, none of them allege illegal retention of classified documents. He’s charged for obstructing the investigation. Hiding and lying about the documents after the subpoena was issued and the 31 charges for withholding highly sensitive defense information under the Espionage Act do not hinge on whether any of it is classified. Just on whether it’s ‘unlawful retention of defense related information.’ And it seems there’s no doubt it was defense-related and it was retained.

3. The Presidential Records Act

Since Trump and his defenders keep claiming he was allowed to possess the documents under the Presidential Records Act, Abrams argued that the act is “almost certainly not relevant to the case” since the sensitive documents were government property, not personal documents that Trump prepared himself. Abrams said:

Think about it. Using the Trump team’s logic, the former president could take any and every government document, no matter how sensitive and just claim it’s his. Now, of course, that can’t be the standard. But even if you think it could apply, it’s almost certainly not relevant here for the charges of obstructing the investigation, nor to the 31 counts for the willful retention of national defense documents.

Those charges are not about a dispute between the National Archives and the president over who should keep the documents, as was the case in the Clinton matter. This is a charge that the nation’s security was put at risk by the retention of the documents, period.

4. What About Biden?

Regarding Trumpworld’s attempts to compare Trump’s situation with the classified documents found in Joe Biden’s home and offices, Abrams pointed out that “there is no evidence at this point that [the president] lied or intentionally tried to hide” the documents he had. As for Trump, he and his legal team refused to hand over everything they had despite receiving a subpoena. Abrams explained:

Here’s where that argument falls really flat. Biden consented to two FBI searches at the university, searches that did not initially appear to turn up any documents with classified markings.

Despite the thorough debunking of the apparently thin defenses, Abrams concluded that he still wasn’t convinced that the charges should be brought.

“I’ve said it before. Look. I think this indictment is bad for the country. It will end up further dividing us. But that doesn’t necessarily mean you can’t bring charges,” Abrams said. “Look, I thought the New York case was weak and politicized, and I said it. This is different. This is based on the evidence. Even if it is bad for the country, there’s nothing to indicate it’s politicized.”

Watch above via NewsNation.