Jim Trusty’s Wall Street Journal commentary (Dec. 26, 2025) alleges grave misconduct in the Mar-a-Lago documents investigation. Below, we critically evaluate his key claims in five areas, contrasting them with legal precedent and independent analysis. Assistance from ChatGPT AI.
1. Executive Privilege, Attorney-Client Privilege, and the Presidential Records Act
Trusty’s Claims: The author contends that President Biden’s White House improperly denied executive privilege to Donald Trump, and that prosecutors “obliterated” attorney-client privilege by invoking the crime-fraud exception. He also suggests the Presidential Records Act (PRA) gave Mr. Trump broad authority to retain documents (citing the “Clinton sock drawer” case), implying Trump’s handling of records was lawful[1][2].
Executive Privilege: In reality, a former president’s executive privilege claims do not automatically override the incumbent president’s determination. Legal precedent confirms that President Biden was “not constitutionally obligated to honor [Mr.] Trump’s assertion of executive privilege” when Congress or law enforcement sought Trump-era records[3]. In late 2021, for example, a federal court upheld Biden’s decision to release Trump White House records to the Jan. 6 committee, noting it would be inappropriate to second-guess the incumbent’s judgment that disclosure served the national interest[3][4]. In short, Biden’s refusal to uphold Trump’s privilege in investigations was legally permissible – not a willful violation of executive privilege. Courts have also repeatedly ordered former aides to testify despite Trump’s privilege objections, underscoring that in criminal inquiries a former president’s executive privilege will yield to the needs of justice if the current administration does not support the claim. Trusty’s portrayal of Biden “deciding executive privilege didn’t apply” frames a legal reality as scandal; in fact it reflects settled principle that the privilege belongs to the office, not the individual once he leaves office[3].
Attorney-Client Privilege and Crime-Fraud Exception: Trusty calls it “rarely employed” that prosecutors pierced attorney-client communications between Trump and his lawyer (Evan Corcoran). It is unusual for a court to override attorney-client privilege, but only when there is evidence of likely wrongdoing – exactly the showing DOJ made. In March 2023, Chief Judge Beryl Howell found sufficient evidence that Trump may have used his attorney to further a crime (obstructing document retrieval). She therefore compelled Corcoran’s testimony under the well-established crime-fraud exception, and a D.C. Circuit panel upheld that order[5]. Far from an abuse, this process was vetted by multiple judges. Notably, Corcoran’s later grand jury testimony provided “powerful evidence” – for example, he recounted Trump suggesting they “just say we don’t have [any documents]” – which strongly indicated an intent to hide official records[6][5]. Invoking crime-fraud to obtain such testimony is legally valid when supported by evidence of misconduct. While Trusty is correct that this tool is infrequently used, its application here was reviewed and affirmed on appeal[5]. In essence, the breach of Trump’s confidentiality with his lawyer was court-authorized because there was credible preliminary evidence of obstruction, not simply because prosecutors were overzealous.
Presidential Records Act (PRA) and the “Sock Drawer” Case: Trusty heavily leans on a 2012 case (Judicial Watch v. NARA, concerning Bill Clinton’s audio tapes kept in a sock drawer) to argue Trump had the right to keep documents. That argument is misleading. The PRA distinguishes personal records (e.g. diaries or notes not used in official duties) from presidential records (which belong to the government)[7][8]. In Clinton’s case, a judge held that interview tapes Clinton made with a historian were personal materials (akin to a diary) and thus not subject to forced archiving[9][8]. Crucially, the court noted “the PRA does not confer any authority on the Archivist to seize control of records the President deems personal.”[9] Clinton’s tapes, lacking classified content and created for his own use, fell in that category. By contrast, Donald Trump’s boxes at Mar-a-Lago contained scores of official documents, many marked classified – clearly presidential records or agency records by definition (not Trump’s personal property)[10][11]. Legal experts emphasize that “no prior case has held that a president has absolute discretion to designate official government records – classified or unclassified – as his own personal records.”[12] In fact, the PRA was designed to prevent ex-presidents from treating official files as personal possessions[13][14].
It is also incorrect that the PRA shields a former president from criminal laws on classified materials. The PRA is an archiving statute with no criminal penalties (a point Trusty highlights[2]), but it does not immunize presidents from other laws like the Espionage Act. As one commentator noted, “If lawmakers intended the PRA to modify the Espionage Act such that presidents were immune…they would have said so. They did not.”[13] The Espionage Act (18 U.S.C. §793) applies to “everyone,” including ex-officials[15], and it was under that law (plus obstruction statutes) that Trump was indicted – not under the PRA. Trump’s own former attorney general, Bill Barr, has flatly rejected the “Clinton sock drawer” defense in Trump’s case, calling it a legal red herring. In short, Trusty’s implication that Trump’s retention of documents was lawful under the PRA is unsupported. Neutral legal analysts (across the spectrum) agree that the 2012 Clinton case “provides no support” for the idea that a president can willfully hoard official or classified records post-term[16]. One national security lawyer put it bluntly: believing the PRA allowed Trump to ignore other laws is “the stuff of lunacy.”[17]
Summary: Trusty’s assertions on privilege and the PRA lack legal validity when scrutinized. Biden’s stance on executive privilege was backed by law[3]; the crime-fraud exception was invoked through due process and evidence[5]; and the PRA does not authorize a former president to flout classified-records laws[13][12]. His commentary omits these critical distinctions.
2. Claims of Political Motivation and Prosecutorial Misconduct
Trusty’s Claims: The article portrays the Mar-a-Lago investigation as politically driven and rife with misconduct. Trusty alleges a “politicized archivist” triggered a baseless criminal referral, that a DOJ prosecutor (Jay Bratt) pushed the FBI into an unwarranted raid despite “no probable cause”, and that Special Counsel Jack Smith’s team engaged in heavy-handed or unethical tactics (e.g. threatening a witness’s lawyer with career harm, abusing the D.C. grand jury, and rushing the case on a “political clock”)[18][19]. In essence, he suggests the prosecution was weaponized to target Trump, rather than a good-faith enforcement of the law.
Political Referral by Archivist?: The National Archives (headed in 2022 by Archivist David Ferriero) did refer the matter to the DOJ – but context matters. By law, if the Archives finds possible unlawful removal of records (especially classified records), it must notify the Justice Department. Far from being “politicized,” Ferriero, an Obama appointee, testified that every administration since Reagan had mishandled some records, but Trump’s situation was unique: Trump delayed returning records for months, and the boxes he did return in January 2022 contained highly classified secrets[18]. That discovery left the Archives no choice but to involve the DOJ. Other former presidents did sometimes find stray classified items, but they promptly returned them upon request[18]. None refused to give back material in the face of repeated government demands – which is why no prior referral or raid was needed. Describing the Archivist as “politicized” ignores the fact that Trump’s own actions (retaining dozens of secret documents and allegedly stonewalling) prompted the escalation[19]. Indeed, internal DOJ emails later released indicate the FBI and prosecutors both recognized the unprecedented nature of executing a search on a former President – and they debated it not on partisan grounds but due to the gravity of the situation and the legal stakes[20][21].
FBI vs DOJ – “No Probable Cause”?: Trusty claims FBI agents “pushed back…saying there was no probable cause for a crime,” and that an overzealous prosecutor (Bratt) forced the Mar-a-Lago search anyway[19]. It’s true there was initial caution at the FBI. Reports confirm some FBI officials urged a slower, cooperative approach, given the historic implications of raiding a former president[20][21]. However, this caution was not because agents found “no probable cause.” Rather, FBI field agents were wary of being too aggressive and suggested seeking Trump’s consent to search first[20][22]. DOJ prosecutors, on the other hand, had gathered evidence by mid-2022 that Trump might be “knowingly concealing” sensitive documents at Mar-a-Lago[23][20]. For example, surveillance footage and witness information indicated not all classified files had been returned despite a subpoena. This new evidence led prosecutors to insist on a surprise search warrant, fearing Trump’s team was not being fully honest[20][24]. In the end, the DOJ’s stance prevailed – and a neutral magistrate judge reviewed DOJ’s affidavit and agreed there was probable cause that evidence of crimes would be found[25]. The August 8, 2022 search then yielded over 100 more classified documents from Trump’s storage, validating DOJ’s concerns[26]. In hindsight, if the FBI’s early preference (trust Trump’s cooperation) had won out, many records might have remained hidden[27]. In sum, while Trusty casts the search as politically motivated, the public evidence shows law enforcement wrestled internally with the decision but ultimately acted on substantial indications of lawbreaking[20][24]. No court or independent body has found that the FBI lacked probable cause or that the warrant was improper.
Alleged Threat to Walt Nauta’s Lawyer: One of Trusty’s most serious accusations is that Jay Bratt (DOJ’s counterintelligence chief) improperly pressured Stanley Woodward, attorney for Trump aide Walt Nauta. Woodward claimed Bratt raised Woodward’s pending application for a judgeship and implied his “prospects would improve if…[Nauta] would do the right thing” and cooperate against Trump[28]. This allegation, made under oath by Woodward, is indeed troubling. However, Trusty omits that prosecutors vehemently deny this occurred as described. In court filings (unsealed in April 2024), Jack Smith’s team called Woodward’s tale “implausible, if not ludicrous,” noting that Bratt – a 30-year DOJ veteran – had three other officials in the meeting and would hardly issue a crude quid-pro-quo threat in front of colleagues[29][30]. The government’s account is that Bratt did mention seeing Woodward listed on a D.C. Judicial Commission website (mistakenly thinking Woodward was involved in judicial nominations), and urged Nauta’s cooperation in general terms – but made no link between cooperation and any judgeship[31][32]. According to prosecutors, Woodward did not object or indicate any concern at the time; he only raised the issue 9–10 months later when Nauta was facing indictment[33]. The DOJ nonetheless referred the matter to its Office of Professional Responsibility for review “in an abundance of caution”[34]. Importantly, OPR put the inquiry on hold pending the case’s outcome (and Mr. Bratt retired from DOJ in early 2025, as Trusty notes[35]). Thus, we have an unresolved he-said/he-said. Trusty accepts Woodward’s story at face value, terming it the “worst government misconduct” in the case[28]. A more balanced view is that a serious accusation was made but not proven. No judge has found that Bratt actually acted improperly. In fact, Judge Aileen Cannon – no ally of the prosecution – inquired into this issue, but ultimately did not issue any ruling sanctioning the government[36][37]. In evaluating credibility: the timing and absence of corroboration for Woodward’s claim raise questions, as Smith’s filing pointed out[30]. At minimum, Trusty should have acknowledged that the only evidence of this “threat” is a disputed allegation, not an established fact.
Grand Jury Tactics and Venue Maneuvers: Trusty suggests Smith’s team abused the grand jury process in Washington, D.C., then “shifted the grand jury to Florida at the last minute” either to fix a venue problem or to escape the D.C. judge’s scrutiny[38]. It’s true that much of the investigation ran in Washington, where a grand jury issued subpoenas and heard key witnesses (like Mr. Corcoran) in early 2023[39][40]. DOJ ultimately sought charges in the Southern District of Florida, convening a new grand jury there in mid-2023, since most alleged crimes (retaining documents and obstructing retrieval) occurred in Florida. Legal experts widely agree Florida was the proper venue for the indictment – a point even Mr. Trump’s own lawyers planned to argue if prosecutors had charged the case in D.C.[41][42]. In other words, moving the case to Florida was an expected adjustment to ensure the charges stuck jurisdictionally, not evidence of nefarious forum-shopping. Trusty insinuates misconduct before the D.C. grand jury, highlighting that one prosecutor allegedly asked Trump attorney Tim Parlatore dozens of privilege-invoking questions to make Trump look uncooperative[38]. Parlatore did complain publicly that a prosecutor’s aggressive questioning on privileged matters was “improper” and intended to prejudice the grand jurors[43][44]. However, such disputes typically would be addressed by the presiding judge if truly egregious. There’s no indication the court found any grand jury misconduct. Parlatore’s accusations, like Woodward’s, have not been corroborated by any ruling. They did form part of a narrative Trump’s team floated to seek dismissal of the indictment (for selective prosecution or misconduct)[45]. But notably, Judge Cannon never dismissed the charges on these grounds. (She did briefly consider a motion on selective prosecution, which failed, and later dismissed the case on an unrelated technical ground about Smith’s appointment[46].) So while Trusty lists these episodes as if they prove prosecutorial wrongdoing, they remain allegations or tactical gripes that courts did not ultimately validate.
Jack Smith’s “Political Clock” and Speedy Trial: Trusty questions why Special Counsel Smith sought a “speedy trial on the eve of the election,” implying it was a political gambit to hurt Trump’s 2024 prospects. Smith indeed moved quickly – he filed the Mar-a-Lago indictment in June 2023 and initially proposed a December 2023 trial date. Trump’s side sought to delay until after the 2024 election, citing the complexity of classified evidence and the campaign. The court (Judge Cannon) landed on a May 2024 trial setting, which was before the November election but gave more time than DOJ wanted. Is it unusual for a prosecutor to push for a prompt trial? Not particularly. Federal law (the Speedy Trial Act) typically expects trial within 70 days of indictment, and while complex cases often get more time, it’s not extraordinary for prosecutors to say they are ready to proceed quickly. Smith’s team argued that justice should not be delayed for political calendars and that any classified-document issues (under the Classified Information Procedures Act, CIPA) could be managed efficiently. Critics noted that CIPA proceedings can be lengthy, and indeed such complexities might normally postpone a trial for many months. But one could also argue Smith had a legitimate reason to seek an expeditious trial: if delayed past January 2025 and Mr. Trump won the presidency (as he ultimately did), the DOJ would be barred from continuing the prosecution under its own policies. In fact, that’s what happened – after Trump won the 2024 election, Smith dropped the documents case in accordance with DOJ policy against prosecuting a sitting president[47][48]. Therefore, pushing for a 2023–24 trial can be seen as a practical attempt to resolve the case while Trump was still a private citizen. While Trusty frames it as proof of political motive, an equally or more plausible interpretation is that Smith was racing an institutional clock, not a partisan one. Moreover, the decision on timing was ultimately up to the judge, and Judge Cannon did not accuse Smith of misconduct for requesting an earlier date. In sum, a prosecutor wanting to try a criminal case before it risks interference (either from an election or a defendant’s return to power) is not evidence of bad faith – it can reflect a desire to have the justice system do its work timely. There is no rule that high-profile defendants get to wait until after elections to face trial (in fact, the public has an interest in prompt resolution). Thus, this claim of “win-at-all-costs” urgency[49] appears speculative.
Overall Assessment of Misconduct Claims: Trusty, as Trump’s former lawyer, presents one side of the story – focusing on every arguably questionable prosecution move and presuming corrupt intent. However, independent reviews and court outcomes do not substantiate a “scandal.” The Mar-a-Lago probe was aggressive (unprecedented search, piercing attorney privilege, etc.), but each major step had to clear legal hurdles (warrants, judicial orders) and did so. Political context (Trump’s 2024 campaign) undeniably loomed large, yet the Special Counsel’s actions can be explained by evidentiary and procedural imperatives without invoking partisan bias. Even the Republican-led House Judiciary Committee, eager to expose wrongdoing, has not uncovered a smoking gun. They hauled in Jay Bratt for a deposition in May 2025, where he invoked his Fifth Amendment right – which some interpret as suspicious[50][51]. But Bratt’s colleagues say this was due to the hostile, retaliatory environment (Trump’s allies openly vowed to prosecute investigators)[52]. Notably, no court has dismissed Trump’s case for misconduct. The closest was Judge Cannon’s July 2024 dismissal, but that was on a legal technicality about Smith’s appointment, not because DOJ acted in bad faith on the facts[53]. The weight of evidence (including Trump’s own communications and security footage of document movements) suggested a legitimate basis for the investigation. Therefore, while Trusty’s narrative of political persecution resonates with Trump’s supporters, it appears one-sided. Many of his claims rely on unproven allegations (e.g. the judgeship “threat”) or omit that courts approved the contested tactics. Absent further proof, allegations of a partisan “weaponization” remain just that – allegations.
3. Comparisons to Other Presidents’ Handling of Classified Materials (Clinton’s “Sock Drawer” and Beyond)
A major theme in Trusty’s article is that Trump was treated differently from others who had classified or presidential records – insinuating a double standard. He cites the “Clinton sock drawer” incident as a precedent favoring Trump, and notes that no prior president faced a raid or criminal probe for document retention[18][19]. It’s important to parse these comparisons carefully.
The Clinton “Sock Drawer” Case: As discussed above, this case (officially Judicial Watch v. NARA, 2012) is often misused in Trump’s defense. Trusty portrays it as proof that “Clinton kept tapes and it was fine; a judge said a president can decide what’s personal”[54]. In reality, Judge Amy Berman Jackson’s ruling did not bless a president keeping whatever he wants. The court dismissed Judicial Watch’s lawsuit on procedural grounds – primarily because the PRA provides no mechanism for third parties (or even the Archivist) to second-guess a president’s categorization of truly personal records[9][8]. The tapes in question contained Clinton’s private reflections, were not used in government business, and did not contain national security secrets[7][10]. The judge explicitly noted she was “not so sure” those tapes even qualified as presidential records in the first place, since personal diaries are excluded from the PRA’s scope[9][7]. From this narrow ruling, Trump and his allies have tried to extrapolate a broad license for ex-presidents to take any documents. That is a false equivalence. As PolitiFact concluded in a fact-check, “the judicial ruling in the Clinton socks case does not give Trump permission to keep hundreds of classified documents” at his estate[55][56]. The Department of Justice and multiple legal scholars concur that the Clinton case is not a get-out-of-jail card for Trump[16]. Even Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch (who initially championed the “sock drawer” theory to Trump) has acknowledged that Clinton’s tapes were a unique scenario and that if Trump hoarded official records, the outcome would differ. In short, context is key: Clinton’s tapes ≠ Trump’s boxes.
Other Former Presidents (Reagan through Obama): Trusty asserts that every modern president turned over some classified materials after leaving, but none faced a criminal referral until Trump[18][19]. It’s true that archival processes have sometimes led to belated discoveries of classified or presidential documents in officials’ personal papers. For example, after Ronald Reagan left office, a few classified items surfaced and were returned to NARA without incident. The critical difference is compliance and cooperation. Prior presidents (and vice presidents) did not knowingly hold onto troves of documents after requests to return them. No evidence suggests, say, Barack Obama stashed secret files in his home or resisted archive requests – indeed NARA has affirmed Obama turned over all his records properly (materials stored in Obama’s possession are under NARA’s control in the Obama Presidential Library system).
The more pertinent recent comparisons are the cases of President Joe Biden and former Vice President Mike Pence, who did possess classified documents improperly – and were not charged. These actually underscore that Trump’s situation was different in degree and intent:
- President Biden’s Documents: In late 2022, Biden’s team discovered several classified papers from his vice presidency at his home and office. They promptly notified NARA and DOJ and voluntarily returned the materials. Attorney General Garland appointed a Special Counsel (Robert Hur) to investigate Biden. In Hur’s final report (2024), he cited “several material distinctions” between Biden’s conduct and Trump’s[57]. Most notably, Biden never refused to give back documents – he and his lawyers proactively allowed FBI searches and handed over everything[58]. By contrast, Hur noted, “after being given multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, Mr. Trump allegedly did the opposite… he not only refused to return the documents for many months, but he also obstructed justice” (e.g. by hiding boxes)[57][59]. In light of Biden’s cooperation and the lack of evidence of intent to mishandle secrets, Hur declined to recommend charges[60][61] – even though he found some documents were “willfully retained” by Biden’s staff in a technical sense. In short, Biden’s case was resolved without charges because his behavior fit a non-criminal scenario: inadvertent retention and immediate remedial action[58]. Trump’s case, by contrast, involves deliberate retention and alleged deceit.
- Mike Pence’s Documents: A small number of classified files were found at Pence’s Indiana home in early 2023. Pence, like Biden, notified authorities and returned them. The DOJ closed Pence’s inquiry with no charges, citing no willful mishandling. This again supports that voluntary compliance leads to administrative fixes, whereas defiance triggers criminal consequences.
- Hillary Clinton’s Emails: Though not a president, Clinton’s case is often raised for comparison. Trusty’s article doesn’t explicitly mention it, but it is part of the broader debate. In 2016, FBI Director James Comey found Clinton was “extremely careless” in using a private email server for some classified messages, but crucially, the FBI did not find evidence of intentional mishandling or obstruction (Clinton’s team had deleted emails, but the FBI did not establish that this was done with knowledge of classified content or an intent to thwart investigators). Comey concluded that “no reasonable prosecutor” would charge Clinton under the espionage statutes given the lack of willful intent and the context[13][14]. Many disagreed with aspects of Comey’s judgment, but it remains that Clinton was not charged because DOJ historically reserves charges for cases of clear intent or bad-faith misuse of classified info. Trump’s case, as charged, alleges exactly that kind of bad faith (knowing he had secret docs, showing them off, lying to officials about them).
In invoking these prior instances, Trusty attempts to paint Trump as a victim of selective prosecution. However, when comparing like to like, the distinguishing factor is Trump’s alleged obstruction and volume of sensitive material. A former head of the Archives’ litigation division, Jason Baron, observed that “the boxes of records taken to Mar-a-Lago [were] overwhelmingly…official business of the White House, and therefore should have been transferred…to NARA,” unlike Clinton’s personal tapes[10]. He emphasized that allowing a president to unilaterally deem such official files “personal” “would contravene the very reason Congress created the PRA.”[11] In other words, Trump’s stance upends the norms everyone else followed. Even Republicans supportive of Trump quietly concede no president has ever litigated the PRA like this – because none tried to hold onto such documents in the face of government demands.
Thus, the comparisons Trusty draws are not “legally and contextually appropriate.” The Clinton sock drawer case does not exonerate Trump; and the superficially different treatment of Trump versus others stems from factual differences, not bias. When neutral experts weigh these analogies, they find Trump’s situation to be sui generis. As the Associated Press concluded in a June 2023 fact-check: “Trump and his allies are claiming [the PRA] and [the Clinton case] gave him the right to take any documents… after losing re-election. But legal experts say the claims are without merit.”[62] In sum, Trusty’s comparison omits the crucial element of cooperation versus obstruction. Trump’s “singular treatment” (a subpoena, a search warrant, an indictment) came only after he failed to do what Clinton, Biden, Pence, and others did – give the stuff back[63][25].
4. Jim Trusty’s Background and Potential Biases
To assess the credibility of Trusty’s commentary, it’s important to understand who Jim Trusty is and his role in these events. Trusty is not a neutral observer; he has been directly involved as Donald Trump’s attorney in the Mar-a-Lago documents case. Mr. Trump hired Trusty (a seasoned former federal prosecutor) in mid-2022, and Trusty remained on the legal team for about one year[64]. In fact, Trusty was part of the behind-the-scenes scramble on the day of the FBI search (Aug. 8, 2022) and participated in legal strategy afterward[65][66]. He even personally corresponded with DOJ (signing a letter to Congress defending Trump’s document handling, alongside Tim Parlatore)[44]. This close involvement means Trusty’s perspectives are colored by his advocacy on Trump’s behalf and, perhaps, by his own professional stakes in the case’s outcome.
DOJ Career and Departure: Trusty’s background includes a long tenure at the Department of Justice. He served as a federal prosecutor for many years – leading organized crime and gang prosecutions – and rose to Chief of the DOJ’s Organized Crime Section (2009–2015)[67][68]. By his account, he “served under seven different Attorneys General” of both parties[69]. Colleagues generally regarded him as a competent, non-political career attorney. He left DOJ in 2017 for private practice[70], then later joined Trump’s defense. His DOJ experience gives him credibility when talking about standard prosecutorial conduct – he knows how cases are normally handled. Indeed, in congressional testimony in 2024, Trusty spoke of his commitment to fairness and how he was taught to “wield power with grace” as a prosecutor[71][72].
However, Trusty’s alignment with Mr. Trump’s interests introduces bias. He effectively became a spokesperson for Trump’s view that the DOJ was overreaching. Notably, Trusty was the attorney who went on CNN the night of Trump’s indictment (June 2023) and argued that the case was an overblown “documents dispute”[73]. The next day, he and another lawyer resigned from Trump’s team – reportedly due to strategic disagreements[74]. (Some reports suggested Trump was shuffling his legal team, while others hinted Trusty left due to friction with advisors like Boris Epshteyn.) Regardless, even after stepping down as counsel, Trusty has continued to publicly defend Trump. Writing an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal is part of that advocacy. It’s also worth noting he penned a very similar piece on his law firm’s blog (“The Truth Will Out – Even About Mar-a-Lago”) with nearly identical arguments[75][2], further signaling his personal investment in vindicating the former president.
Bias and Perspective: Trusty’s dual identity as a former DOJ prosecutor and Trump’s attorney can cut both ways. On one hand, he may genuinely believe the Mar-a-Lago case represented a break from proper DOJ norms – a perspective informed by his past insider knowledge. On the other hand, he is also personally involved and potentially aggrieved. The article reads as a defense of decisions he and his client made (e.g. resisting DOJ’s demands, litigating special master issues) and a critique of those who opposed them. For instance, Trusty labels Judge Beryl Howell (who ruled against Trump repeatedly) as “particularly friendly” to prosecutors[75], an arguably unprofessional swipe likely born of frustration at her rulings. He calls the Archivist “politicized”[18] without evidence, reflecting Trump’s narrative. These word choices reveal partisanship and personal pique rather than objective analysis.
Trusty also has political incentives. By aligning with Trump’s “weaponization” claims, he has found support among Trump’s allies. He was invited by House Republicans to testify in May 2024 about the alleged politicization of the DOJ[76]. In that forum, he echoed many points from this article – hardly surprising, as both serve the political narrative that Trump is a victim. Such alignment doesn’t automatically disqualify Trusty’s arguments, but it does mean readers should view them through a lens of advocacy. He is making a case, much as he would for a client in court, rather than impartially weighing facts.
In sum, Jim Trusty brings valuable experience but also clear biases as Trump’s former lawyer. His involvement in the case may cloud his objectivity – for example, he downplays evidence of Trump’s wrongdoing and magnifies every misstep by investigators. Understanding his role helps explain the slant: this is not a detached legal analysis, but the perspective of someone who had “skin in the game” and continues to have an interest in defending his client (and by extension, his own professional choices). Recognizing this bias is crucial when evaluating the credibility of the claims he puts forth.
5. Overall Credibility of Trusty’s Article
Considering all the above, how credible is “The Scandal of the Mar-a-Lago Raid” as an analysis? The article does raise some legitimate questions – for example, it is fair to scrutinize the unprecedented nature of searching a former president’s home and to expect the government to justify its actions fully. However, Trusty’s piece falls short of a balanced assessment. It presents a strongly one-sided narrative, often unsupported by the fuller record, and at times verges on being misleading by omission.
Use of Evidence: Trusty’s claims are generally selective. He cites a few known facts or allegations (e.g. the Clinton tapes case, Woodward’s accusation, FBI internal hesitancy) but omits context that contradicts his thesis. For instance, he notes the PRA has no criminal penalty (true) and implies this means Trump should face none – yet he never mentions the Espionage Act or obstruction statutes which are at the heart of the indictment[15][13]. He references the special master saga and DOJ’s pushback, framing it as part of “win-at-all-costs” behavior[77], but doesn’t acknowledge that higher courts agreed with DOJ that Judge Cannon never had authority to intervene in the investigation[78]. He lists questions implying malfeasance (e.g. did they move the grand jury to cover up misconduct?)[79] without offering any proof that the answer is “yes” – and indeed available evidence (the venue issue) suggests otherwise[41]. This pattern undermines the article’s credibility: it cherry-picks favorable points and ignores inconvenient counterpoints.
Tone and One-Sidedness: The tone of Trusty’s piece is that of a defense brief. His characterizations (e.g. calling prosecutor Jay Bratt “hell-bent…for glory”[80], and claiming an FBI “fire drill” turned into a political persecution) are not neutral. They read as advocacy, not objective critique. A credible analysis would at least consider the possibility that DOJ had legitimate reasons for its actions. Trusty does not grant that premise anywhere; every action is ascribed to bad faith or bias. Such absolutism (“no other president was treated this way, therefore it must be scandalous”) is a logical fallacy, ignoring the unique aspects of Trump’s conduct that might justify a unique response. This one-sided approach makes the article less reliable as a guide to what actually happened. It only gives the defense’s side of the story. A reader solely relying on Trusty would come away unaware, for example, that a judge found evidence Trump likely concealed documents (why else override attorney-client privilege?)[5], or that Trump himself allegedly told aides to deceive investigators (key details from the indictment). Trusty conveniently leaves out these damning facts, which is telling.
Support from Neutral Commentary: When we compare Trusty’s assertions with commentary from neutral or even conservative legal figures, a different picture emerges. Many experts have refuted the PRA argument (as discussed)[13][17]. Former officials like ex-Attorney General Bill Barr (a Trump appointee) publicly said the indictment was appropriate and Trump’s hoarding of documents indefensible. Trusty doesn’t mention that; instead, he leans on innuendo that the Archivist and DOJ were politically motivated without offering hard evidence. The article also doesn’t grapple with the fundamental question: If this was all a baseless witch hunt, why did Trump have so many classified files and why did he mislead officials about them? Trusty sidesteps Trump’s conduct entirely – a glaring omission that undercuts his credibility. A truly credible analysis would at least attempt to explain these documents in innocent terms, but on that, Trusty is essentially silent (beyond calling it an “overdue library book” issue)[2]. That metaphor vastly trivializes the gravity of storing nuclear secrets in a resort basement, something no serious neutral observer would do.
Misleading Elements: There are instances where Trusty’s framing could mislead readers. For example, he says “none [of the prior presidents] were subject to a criminal referral from a politicized Archivist”[18]. A reader might think previous presidents had the same volume of classified materials and Archivist Ferriero singled out Trump. In fact, as outlined, no president had withheld boxes of classified records as Trump did, so of course no referral was needed. The insinuation of a double standard is thus predicated on a false equality. Similarly, Trusty’s discussion of the Clinton case quotes the judge to imply “the President has sole discretion”[8][81], but he omits that this discretion applies to dividing personal vs official records during the President’s term, not to absconding with official documents after leaving. By leaving out crucial qualifiers, the article can easily be read to draw incorrect conclusions. These kinds of half-truths or context-stripped citations are a red flag regarding credibility.
Conclusion – Credibility of the Article: In light of the above, Jim Trusty’s WSJ article should be viewed as a partisan defense of Donald Trump rather than a dispassionate legal analysis. Many of its claims are not well-supported when the full factual and legal context is considered. The piece is highly one-sided, consistently adopting interpretations favoring Trump and alleging misconduct without solid proof. While Trusty raises points that merit discussion (executive privilege issues, aggressive prosecutorial methods), his treatment of them is so slanted that it veers toward a misleading narrative. Readers are not getting “the whole story” – they are getting Trump’s story told by one of his advocates.
A more credible evaluation of the Mar-a-Lago investigation would acknowledge both sides: the unprecedented nature of investigating a former president and the unprecedented nature of a former president defying archival and subpoena requirements. Trusty’s article fails to do that, instead presenting Trump as a victim of scandalous conduct without convincingly substantiating that scandal. In conclusion, the claims in “The Scandal of the Mar-a-Lago Raid” serve as a defense brief in op-ed form; they should be weighed against the extensive contrary evidence and legal opinion, which largely undermine the article’s central contentions[17][59].
Sources:
- Chutkan, J. (2021). Trump v. Thompson (Exec. Privilege decision) – as quoted in Lawfare[3].
- Lawfare (Paul Rosenzweig & K. Seiler, 2023) – Crime-fraud exception on Trump’s attorney, upheld on appeal[5].
- Judicial Watch v. NARA (D.D.C. 2012) – Judge Jackson opinion on Clinton tapes (personal vs. presidential)[9][10].
- Politifact (A. Sherman, June 12, 2023) – Why Trump’s case is different from Clinton’s “sock drawer” case[17][12].
- Associated Press (Fact Check, June 2023) – Experts say PRA/“sock drawer” claims are meritless[62].
- Washington Post (Leonnig et al., Mar. 1, 2023) – FBI and DOJ internal debate over Mar-a-Lago search[20][21].
- CBS News (C. Herridge, June 8, 2023) – Interview with ex-Trump lawyer Tim Parlatore on grand jury venue and misconduct claims[41][43].
- Lawfare (B. Wittes et al., Apr. 2024) – “Return of the Stanley Woodward Mess” (detailed analysis of the alleged judgeship threat and Smith’s response)[82][30].
- ABC News (Mar. 12, 2024) – Summary of Special Counsel Hur’s Biden documents report, contrasting Biden’s cooperation with Trump’s obstruction[57][58].
- Jim Trusty, House Judiciary Testimony (May 2024) – Trusty’s self-description of his background and Trump representation[67][64].
- Jim Trusty, “The Truth Will Out – Even About Mar-a-Lago,” Ifrah Law blog (Oct. 2024) – Trusty’s own account aligning with the WSJ op-ed[18][19].
[1] [25] [28] [35] [63] [80] The Scandal of the Mar-a-Lago Raid – WSJ.pdf
file://file_00000000b93c71f5b99af40032449738
[2] [18] [19] [38] [49] [54] [65] [66] [75] [77] [79] The Truth Will Out – Even About Mar-a-Lago – Ifrah Law
https://www.ifrahlaw.com/crime-in-the-suites/the-truth-will-out-even-about-mar-a-lago/
[3] [4] Biden vs. Trump: Who Has the Last Word on Presidential Records? | Lawfare
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/biden-vs-trump-who-has-last-word-presidential-records
[5] [6] [39] [40] M. Evan Corcoran’s Attorney-Client Privilege in Florida | Lawfare
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/m.-evan-corcoran-s-attorney-client-privilege-in-florida
[7] [8] [9] [13] [14] [15] [16] [78] [81] The Presidential Records Act, Clinton’s Socks, and Trump’s Boxes | Lawfare
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-presidential-records-act-clinton’s-socks-and-trump’s-boxes
[10] [11] [12] [17] [55] [56] PolitiFact | Yes, Bill Clinton kept tapes in his sock drawer. Here’s why Trump’s case is different.
https://www.politifact.com/article/2023/jun/12/why-the-bill-clinton-sock-drawer-case-is-not-compa/
[20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [26] [27] FBI agents and DOJ prosecutors argued over raid of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago – The Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/03/01/fbi-dispute-trump-mar-a-lago-raid/
[29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [36] [37] [82] The Return of the Stanley Woodward Mess | Lawfare
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-return-of-the-stanley-woodward-mess
[41] [42] [43] [44] [45] Former Trump attorney Timothy Parlatore thinks Trump could be indicted in Florida – CBS News
[46] [47] [48] [50] [51] [52] [53] Mar-a-Lago special prosecutor takes the fifth at ‘weaponized’ House committee | US justice system | The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/14/jay-bratt-prosecutor-trump-congress-committee
[57] [58] [59] [60] [61] Numbers in special counsel report refute Trump’s claim that Biden had ‘more documents’ – ABC News
[62] FACT FOCUS: Trump twists Presidential Records Act, Clinton ‘sock drawer’ case to mount defense | AP News
[64] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [76] docs.house.gov
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/FD/FD00/20240515/117301/HHRG-118-FD00-Bio-TrustyJ-20240515.pdf
[73] Trump says he’ll plead not guilty after federal indictment – ABC …
[74] 2 lawyers from Trump’s legal team resigned after he was …
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-lawyers-resign-indictment-legal-team-jim-trusty-john-rowley/