Will Scharf, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney who served in St. Louis, critically analyzed the federal indictment of President Trump by the Department of Justice (DOJ), which answers to Joe Biden. In a detailed Twitter thread, Scharf slammed the indictment, describing it as “outrageous and shocking.”
Following are the six key points in Scharf’s analysis of the case:
- Interplay between the Espionage Act and the Presidential Records Act
- Classification and National Defense Information
- Walt Nauta and DOJ Misconduct
- Attorney-Client Privilege
- Timing: Why now?
- Jack Smith: Why him?
In his initial tweet, Scharf highlighted the relevance of the Presidential Records Act and cited earlier assessments provided by Judicial Watch and Mike Davis.
“Basically, their argument distills down to the idea that the President’s authority to retain Personal Records, as well as his rights to access his Presidential Records, make it impossible to prosecute him under the Espionage Act section at issue here, § 793(e), because the government cannot prove ‘unauthorized possession,’ as required under the statute,” Scharf wrote.
The former U.S. attorney raised concerns about the weak legal theory employed by Smith, which would require proving Trump’s state of mind. He clarified that Trump probably considered the records to be his personal property since they were intermingled with various personal and unclassified presidential records.
“More than anything, this case hinges on the ability of the Special Counsel to prove *beyond a reasonable doubt* aspects of Trump’s state of mind that will be extremely difficult to prove in this case because of his obligations and rights under the Presidential Records Act. In addition to all of the usual issues,” Scharf continued.
In his third tweet, Scharf highlighted the arrest of Walt Nauta, a Trump aide, as “the most troubling side story to emerge from this saga so far.” According to a court filing by Nauta’s lawyer, Stanley Woodward, during a meeting with prosecutors regarding his client’s case, Jay Bratt, the head of the Counterintelligence Section within the National Security Division of the DOJ, insinuated that Woodward’s application for a judgeship in the DC Superior Court might receive more favorable consideration if both he and his client cooperated against Trump.
“If true, and I find it hard to believe that Woodward just made the whole thing up, this is wild misconduct. Truly wild. It could undermine the entire case against both Trump and Nauta. It could end careers at DOJ if fairly investigated,” Scharf said.
In his lengthy Twitter thread, the former assistant U.S. attorney scrutinized multiple aspects of the DOJ’s case, including their handling of classification abilities, the alleged breach of attorney-client privilege, the timing of the indictment, and the lackluster career of prosecutor Jack Smith. Scharf pointed out various flaws and inconsistencies in these areas throughout his detailed analysis.
