I read the indictment so you don't need to.
Here it is, 49 pages, double spaced.
My takeaway impressions:
1. Trump's behavior seems so childish. The indictment lays out in detail Trump taking documents from his time in office. He was told he couldn't do it and government agencies badgered him repeatedly to return them. He wouldn't. He took overt steps to hide the documents by having them moved around his residences. He also bragged to other people about having them. He kept doing it even as the federal effort to retrieve them increased. His aide, Waltine Nauta, directly lied about it to investigators. Trump told his lawyers to misrepresent to the court that a "diligent search" had taken place.
He knew that the government was serious in wanting them back. Trump dug in his heels and refused.
Trump comes across as a petulant, spoiled child, who refuses to give back a stolen toy.
2. The evidence seems so well documented. The fact that Trump had documents he wasn't supposed to have seems airtight and obvious. Trump bragged about it. The documents are right there and tangible. His efforts to obstruct finding them are documented by multiple witnesses and photographs. Trump is legally presumed innocent, but the facts seem indisputable, including the fact that this isn't an "innocent mistake." This was on purpose.
3. The document case seems small, compared with the much bigger cancer that Trump has been in American politics. Trump carried out an effort to overturn an election and to stay in office despite having lost the election of 2020. He tried to corrupt state legislatures, state and local election officials, and his vice president. He soiled and corrupted a political party in doing so, getting so many officeholders to abandon their principles in order to be loyal to Trump. That is the big crime, the corruption of our democracy.
His taking documents, hiding documents, lying about the documents, and obstructing justice in order to hang onto his souvenirs is the sort of crime a person who did the big crime against democracy might do, but this is the smaller one. But this one is clear and simple and the elements are easier to prove, including to a jury which likely will have people on it who are supportive and protective of Trump.
Eli Lake, a columnist at the New York Sun, writes:
“One of the major problems with [the Espionage Act] is that it does not distinguish between actual spies—people who give or sell state secrets to a foreign power—and those who seek to inform the American people about their government’s excesses and abuses. In this respect, the law is a loaded gun against modern journalism.”
I agree.
Excellent succinct analysis.