This man is more dangerous to Trump than Stormy Daniels

Attorney-client privilege is generally sacred. But even Americans obsessively fixated on the law have one exception: if the lawyer helps his client with a crime, it can be reversed.

That’s exactly what happened with Evan Corcoran. Donald Trump’s lawyer has given investigating authorities an affidavit stating that the ex-president returned all documents illegally in his possession. That was a lie. Now special counsel Jack Smith wants to clarify whether he did this at the behest of and in consultation with Trump. If so, then Corcoran wouldn’t have committed a crime alone. Trump would therefore have broken the law.

Short flashback: After Trump reluctantly and hastily left the White House, representatives of the National Archives and Records Administration soon discovered that the ex-president had leaked a slew of documents that belonged not to him, but to the public and therefore owned of the National Archives.

In principle, this is not a big deal. This misfortune has also happened to other presidents. However, when alerted, they immediately turned these documents over to the National Archives. If you want to use some of these documents later – for example, as a reminder when writing the memoir – you can access them at any time.

Trump didn’t care about this procedure when he moved. When he moved to Mar-a-Lago, he had crates of documents removed on his own initiative. Then when asked to return these documents, he grumbled and agreed to do so. At the same time, his lawyer made the above statement.

However, it soon became apparent that Trump had illegally withheld a number of documents. Yes, there’s even a video showing two men transporting multiple boxes in Mar-a-Lago to another location.

The ex-president did not respond to several requests to release these documents. So the FBI searched his residence last summer and found a large number of such documents, including more than a hundred, marked “top secret.” This made it clear that a crime had been committed. However, it needs to be clarified whether it was committed with Trump’s knowledge and intent.

This can now be determined without any problems. An appeals court in Washington just rejected an objection from Trump’s legal team. The purpose of this objection was to avoid having attorney Evan Corcoran testify before a special counsel jury and submit his notes. A judge had previously ordered this.

Corcoran must certainly testify now. Trump cannot prevent this. At most, he can try to prevent his statements from being used against him in any legal proceedings. But even this venture has little chance of success.

What does this mean concretely? In basketball parlance, Special Counsel Smith now has a chance to score a slam dunk, a hit you can’t really miss. There is no doubt that a crime was committed, as the documents found at Mar-a-Lago were illegally in Trump’s possession. Corcoran’s testimony also provides unequivocal evidence that the former president knowingly attempted to prevent these documents from being delivered to their rightful owner, the National Archives, and that he lied to authorities in doing so.

Some open questions remain:

Will Special Counsel Smith file charges against Trump soon?

The chance that such an indictment will be made has increased enormously with the Court’s ruling. Not only must Smith clear up the documents issue, he must figure out whether to indict Trump for his role in storming the Capitol. It is unclear if and how this will be the case.

Why is the documents case much more dangerous to Trump than the Stormy case?

Firstly because it is much more serious and secondly because it is much clearer. No one doubts that Trump paid hush money to the porn star. However, it is far from clear from a legal point of view whether he also committed a crime.

What about the documents found on Joe Biden and Mike Pence?

In the case of the sitting president, Attorney General Merrick Garland has also appointed special counsel. But there is one crucial difference: Both Biden and Pence immediately offered to work together. In their case, it’s probably a matter of carelessness.

There could soon be three charges against Trump. How do they get past each other?

Two of the potential charges are state-specific (New York and Georgia). However, a possible charge against the special counsel is federal and thus fundamentally superior. Should there actually be three charges, the corresponding prosecutors will likely coordinate.

And now the million-dollar question: who benefits from these costs?

Trump is going on a rampage, presenting himself as the victim of a political witch hunt, but it is uncertain whether he will succeed. Karl Rove, former chief strategist of George W. Bush, is skeptical. In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, he states: “The most likely outcome of Trump’s rampage will be that he convinces more and more Republicans that he is unelected. (…) He better keep the ball low and focus on passing for the judge. But then he wouldn’t be Donald Trump.”