The Milley Tape: “Bring Some Cokes in Please!”

CNN obtained copies of the recording described in ¶34 of Trump’s Espionage Act indictment. This is my take.

“This thing just came up.”

Shortly after the CNN clip starts, Trump says, “I have a big pile of papers, this just came up.” He’s saying that, remember, after having transported the documents from Mar-a-Lago to Bedminster for the summer. His comment that, “this just came up,” suggests he was not only carrying these documents around, but reviewing them.

Given the fact that Trump’s lawyers weren’t able to find this document, it means he was reviewing them … before they disappeared forever.

“These are bad sick people”

Trump compulsively shared this document for revenge — the same reason he put together the dumbass Russian binder. It not just speaks to intentional retention of documents, but it shows that he intended, from the start, to retain documents to exact revenge on his perceived detractors.

Note that this is the same reason he released classified information at least once while President — when he shared details about the Josh Schulte investigation with Tucker Carlson on the same day the FBI planned to search Schulte’s home. He did so because of false claims he had been wiretapped, but also did so to blame President Obama for the leak.

Trump’s pathological need for revenge would be very very easy to exploit by anyone willing to push Trump’s buttons.

“You probably almost didn’t believe me, but now you believe me”

As multiple reports regarding this document explained, Trump was lying. This document didn’t come from Milley, it dated back to Milley’s predecessor, sometime in 2019. Nevertheless he kept saying, “this was him, this totally wins my case.”

So it didn’t prove his case. Milley didn’t want to attack Iran, but Trump was using an unrelated document to claim that he did.

But Trump was using it — waving a document he described as highly confidential — to substantiate a false claim.

“She’d send it to Anthony Weiner, the pervert”

Trump and his aide joke about Hillary printing this out and sending it to Anthony Weiner. That’s unsurprising: Trump always rationalized his own mistreatment of information by pointing to Hillary’s email server (this Roger Parloff post is a remarkably thorough debunking of Trump’s claims).

But understand how this comment will appear against the context of the five attacks on Hillary Trump used to get elected, cited in the indictment.

Jack Smith plans to use Trump’s past condemnation of Hillary to show that Trump knew this was wrongful. So even his false quip about Weiner will make this evidence more valuable.

And then, at the end of this recording, Trump called a staffer to bring some cokes, emphasizing how banal sharing classified information was for Trump.

Update: Several people questioned who leaked this in comments. Remember that at an equivalent point in Michael Cohen’s prosecution — when SDNY was about to get the recording Cohen made of Trump ordering a hush payment — Trump released the tape to preempt damage. In that case, Trump would have gotten the recording via discovery, because he was participating in the Special Master review. In this case, Trump independently owns copies of the recording, which was made for his own purpose.

It’s certainly possible someone else (perhaps the journalists who took it) released it. But Trump releasing it — then blaming Jack Smith just as Aileen Cannon gets involved in such issues — would be the most predictable thing ever.

Update: Fixed my misuse of avenge.

239 replies
    • ExRacerX says:

      It’s like a Sgt. Pepper’s of putridity, a Bolero of badness, a Trane’s Blues of terrible.

    • BethHope1 says:

      This was so stark. When someone in the background says something like “Ohy God” it’s clear the classified markings were visible to all in sight.

      Yet, the tape of Trump coercing Georgia official Rasenberger (spelling?) to find 11,780 votes still gives me more chills and dread about our democracy. That call was worse, IMHO.
      [bmaz please have mercy on me if this is incorrect name. I don’t remember if I have previously commented, nor the username]

      • Ellis Weiner says:

        I think she says, “Now we have a problem,” which to me means, “You’ve just shown me something classified, which I have no legal right to see or have seen.” He ignores that.

        I also like (or “like”) how he says, “This is off the record,” as though by saying that to anyone–even aides, who are not reporters–he immunizes himself from charges of wrongdoing.

        • NickBarnes says:

          I think that Trump was going to give this document, or a copy of it, directly to the writer and the publisher. When he says “Uh, I think we can probably, you know.”, I think he’s gesturing as if to hand the document over. Then the main staffer on the tape says “Well, we’ll have to see. Yeah, we’ll have to, try to, …”; Trump says “Declassify it”; the staffer continues “figure out a, yeah”; and Trump says “See, as president I could have declassified it”.

          On its own the tape is incredibly damning. Get testimony from one or two of the people in the room to say they saw the document and the classification markings on it, and it’s surely a slam-dunk case (though for an offense which is not in the indictment). I’m curious to hear that witness testimony.

        • bmaz says:

          There are no “slam dunks”. Sure wish people would quit saying that about criminal trial cases.

        • Stephen Calhoun says:

          Yup, it’s glib. It also is not a very apt analogy given that any basketball fan has seen plenty of players miss a gimme dunk at point blank range.

        • CovariantTensor says:

          Well, the metaphor was first used in recent memory to describe GWB’s false casus belli for invading Iraq. What does that say?

      • Wajim says:

        In my experience, bmaz is actually a pussycat unless one is a fool or a total ignoramus. It’s Rayne who holds the real power. All should fear her wrath!

        (Oh, and Rayne, I’m still trying to figure out how to change my user name to your new standard, with which I have no problem complying. I’m on a Mac Air running Ventura 3.4.1, and so what “cache”? Help? Signed, “Elderly Technophobe” running on the same 5.25″floppy disc since the early 60s)

  1. GeeSizzle says:

    Possible typo: I think “…at least once with President” was meant to be …”as President” perhaps?

  2. John Panzer says:

    You have to guess that Nauta was the staffer who was being called upon to provide Cokes at the end. (I mean, you have to ask him if he was there, if you’re Jack Smith, right?)

  3. Steve Bentley says:

    Soon we will hear that he was such a Security Maven that “Cokes” was code for “De-classification”

  4. Midtowngirl says:

    He can be heard saying, “These are the papers,” which is about as incriminating as you can get. Does anyone have an idea why that particular quote didn’t make the indictment?

    • emptywheel says:

      Good question.

      Remember, though, that Smith’s plans wrt NJ (or possibly a conspiracy theory starting in DC and extending to NJ) remain obscure. So that may be why.

    • timbozone says:

      AFAIK, Cannon has yet to rule on whether any of this is admissible at trial. It certainly might be but it has to be approved by Cannon if the defense objects to its inclusion.

      • Ginevra diBenci says:

        I’m wondering about that too, and would like to know from one of the legal experts here whether she might/could exclude it. On TV everyone (the lawyers) talks like it’s already in evidence, but can they really assume that?

        • David Brooks says:

          These days I notice the phrase “the likes of which” much more than I used to, in all manner of contexts. Even on the BBC, for chrissake. Is this yet another result of our depressing familiarity with Trump’s rhetoric, or is it (I realize it’s not a new phrase) that I’m more sensitized to notice it? Rhetorical question of course.

        • Peterr says:

          With Trump, it’s a part of his worldview. He is at the center of the universe, and beyond compare with anyone who came before him. When events arise, they are likewise beyond compare with anything that came before. If they are good, then he takes the obvious credit for doing something that is greater than anyone else has ever done. When they are bad, the blame goes elsewhere – Biden, Hillary, The Dems, The Swamp, The Deep State, etc. Everything in Trump’s world is “the ultimate” and everything Trump does is “perfect.” Everything.

          What makes you notice it, I think, is that when you get right down to it, Trump is a relatively bad public speaker. He has certain phrases and ways of speaking that he can’t get away from, and this is one of them. Playing a drinking game with Trump’s rhetoric is a sure recipe for alcohol poisoning.

        • John Thomas says:

          “With Trump, it’s a part of his worldview. He is at the center of the universe, and beyond compare with anyone who came before him.”


          Like Trump, Saddam Hussein was another megalomaniacal narcissist. We can blame him for “the mother of all” phrase… another grossly overused superlative.

          Our language is evolving,and not necessarily in a good direction, thanks to the ignoranuses [a portmanteau, not a misspelling] who perpetuate its misuse.

          Another pet peeve: using the word “literally” when one clearly means “figuratively.”


        • Fedupin10 says:

          Trump learned to use the English language and got his world view from the only friends he had as a kid, the TV and movies.

        • Beverly_27JUN2023_2326h says:

          The disjointed language may be a combination of things. There’s a propaganda technique where, as long as you say the right buzzwords, with the desired amount of emotion (negative, positive) your audience will fill in what they want to hear/believe.

          Have you noticed that he’s at his best performing for a crowd? Like any good conman, he gauges his audience response & tailors his speeches accordingly. In psychics, they do this as a cold reading. Whereas in one on one interviews, especially with some pushback, he comes off sounding terrible. He NEEDS a crowd to perform.

          Do I think T is an inarticulate fraud, and stupid to boot? Yes. But he DOES know how to work a crowd, or group of admirers. Perhaps his only skill.

          [Welcome to emptywheel. Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We are moving to a new minimum standard to support community security. Because your username is far too common (there are more than one “Bev” or “Beverly” here) it will be temporarily changed to match the date/time of your first known comment until you have a new compliant username. Thanks. /~Rayne]

        • Ginevra diBenci says:

          Trump’s command of language has degraded, regardless of what he thinks of his “voice.”

          Almost every sentence he completed in that conversation relied on a conjugation of “to be.” (Ex: “It’s incredible!”) All he does is slap adjectives on himself and his toys and his enemies. Many three-year-olds articulate more complex ideas.

          The emperor may have clothes, but he has no active verbs.

        • Tech Support says:

          “Language is a virus” – William S. Burroughs

          Must have been like 6-7 years ago, I noticed all of a sudden (to me anyway) a notable increase in the use of “whatnot” by people around me and I didn’t understand why. I dug into Google Trends a bit and there appeared to be a substantial uptick (in their searches anyway) around 2008-2009. Never did manage to trace an origin.

        • John Thomas says:

          It’s “too proud…”

          Proofreading is a lost art.

          I have a nearly debilitating case of grammarian OCD, so please go easy on me, Mr. bmaz,

        • chesterfield says:

          Two favorite tells: “To tell the truth”, and “I won’t lie to you”.
          Rarely accurate.

        • ButteredToast says:

          Trump has ruined multiple phrases and words for me, or at least used them so much that I think twice before using them. Additional examples: “frankly,” “perfect,” “hoax,” “crooked.”

        • David F. Snyder says:

          You must mean:” “the likes of which” might could be right smart.”

          Get with the program! 😀

      • Turgidson says:

        “This big former army guy comes up to me, tears in his eyes, and says ‘Sir, your ability to commit crimes out in the open is the greatest I’ve ever seen. The greatest.'”

        • John Paul Jones says:

          Seth Meyers (may he soon return) does that particular bit of Trump schtick to perfection. “So the puppy came up to me – big puppy, strong puppy – the puppy comes up to me, tears in his eyes, and he says – ‘Sir’ ” etc etc.

        • Ginevra diBenci says:

          Lately I get the eerie sensation that Trump himself is imitating Seth Myers.

          Myers is that good.

  5. soundgood2 says:

    What responsibility do the people in the room who acknowledge the documents are secret and that they are not supposed to be viewing them have? Are they required to report that they have seen classified documents?

    • eyesoars says:

      They have a responsibility to testify to what they saw and heard during that session, if subpoenaed. I’d be surprised to learn that DOJ hasn’t questioned some or all of the non-Trump participants regarding this event.

    • ChipOffTheOldBlock says:

      If you’re talking about someone with a clearance (like, say, a Secret Service agent), then they would have an affirmative duty to report this to their Facility Security Officer. Consequences for not doing so depend on the situation, ranging from having to sit through remedial/refresher security training to a formal reprimand to loss of clearance or potentially even legal consequences.

      If you’re talking about random journalists/biographers/waiters, I don’t think there’s a legal duty to report this to law enforcement, but I’ll defer to the lawyers on that.

  6. NaMaErA says:

    In his dumb Brett interview, he made the lamest small-brained attempt to explain away the rustling by saying it was newspapers and magazines … bc yeah he’s such a voracious reader of news/politics/etc. So busted.

    • Fraud Guy says:

      I mean, if he claimed it was toilet paper from his many trips to the bathroom based on his diet, then you could believe it was him receiving courtiers while on his throne…

  7. obsessed says:

    Great insights, but who leaked this audio and why? Unless corrected, I’m ruling out anybody on Smith’s team. Actually the first question is who COULD have leaked the tapes? The govt. has them and has turned them over in discovery right? And whoever taped them would have them. I’m really struggling to see how having this audio go viral helps Trump, unless it’s to make sure future jurors have heard it so its impact is less shocking when it’s presented at trial?

    • Vee_27JUN2023_0310h says:

      He leaked it.

      [Welcome to emptywheel. Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We are moving to a new minimum standard to support community security. Because your username is far too short it will be temporarily changed to match the date/time of your first known comment until you have a new compliant username. Thanks. /~Rayne]

    • Raven Eye says:

      Trump’s staff simultaneously recorded the interview. Analysis of the audio files would show differences between the various recordings due to the characteristics of the different recording equipment as well as acoustic differences based on the physical location of the recording device/microphone. That “could” aid in identifying the several different recordings that are out there.

      The metadata associated with the different recordings would be different, though that is fairly easy to edit.

      In theory, any recordings exchanged or released could have been run through an equalizer and narrow notches introduced at very specific frequencies that would establish a digital fingerprint (which the human ear would be unlikely to detect). Depending upon the technical savvy of the different parties, any of those measures can be modified.

      As for motive…The presence of any leaks can be used by one side in an attempt to discredit the other.

      • Hormiguita says:

        There speaks a (former?) electronic warfare operator, methinks. It’s true that there’s a lot of subtle detail in acoustic and radio signals that can be exploited to yield useful details.

        • BrokenPromises says:

          …electronic warfare operator? Forensics investigator more likely. Science inhabits many disciplines. Obviously forensics is vita to criminal prosecutions.

    • Ginevra diBenci says:

      As EW said, this smells like yet one more leak from Trump’s team. Designed to be imputed to DOJ (Aileen Cannon has bit on this gambit before). If that fails, at least it somewhat buffers the impact of whatever is coming next. That’s how they play. (See WaPo, esp. Dawsey and Barrett bylines.)

  8. xyxyxyxy says:

    How does this ever go to trial?
    He’s never going to hire a lawyer that can get clearance.
    And probably no lawyer that can get clearance will ever work with him.

    • Knowatall says:

      Good point. Could he be assigned a public defender? BMAZ, is there such a thing at the federal level (security cleared pd)?

    • Tassy says:

      That would be his point. He’ll purposely not find a lawyer that’s acceptable just to delay. What happens then? Would he be assigned one? Can they do that?

      [Welcome back to emptywheel. Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We are moving to a new minimum standard to support community security. Thanks. /~Rayne]

      • xyxyxyxy says:

        How about never have the trial.
        And when he somehow is forced to get one or given one he’ll scream how he is getting screwed because he can’t get one of his choice.

  9. Baseless Fabric says:

    The first leak of discovery material didn’t take long. Anyone remember when defence council received it?

    What purpose did leaking it serve?

    *winks in greymail*

  10. Connor Lynch says:

    In 99/100 cases I doubt DOJ would ever look into how a tape like this ended up in the hands of CNN. Presumably someone, somewhere has a legal, free-to-provide-to-anyone copy of it that prosecutors obtained in the first place.

    In *this* case, though… certainly the fact that CNN published this tape days after it was made available to defense counsel under a protective order that would, among other things, prohibit giving it to CNN (or even letting Trump have a copy of it that he could give to CNN) is going to raise some eyebrows. Particularly when those same attorneys also are currently asking the government to give them access to the most closely held secrets of the country.

  11. GKJames says:

    In passing… Reading Roger Parloff’s piece and taking another look at the OG report about Clinton’s emails, Comey’s “extremely careless” claim seems even more reckless in retrospect. Obsessed with his own reputation, and fearing Republican criticism, he didn’t hesitate to use innuendo to go beyond what his people actually found.

  12. Tom Marney says:

    So, in addition to everything else, Trump is too stupid and ignorant to realize that preparing and continually updating contingency plans for military action against our most implacable adversaries is a critical duty of the military. It’d be a lot more shocking if Milley *wasn’t* able to produce a plan for action against Iran on short notice.

  13. Spank Flaps says:

    On page 15 of the indictment, just before the transcript of this tape, it says “Upon greeting the writers… Trump stated…(Look what I found)”
    So this conversation happened right off the bat.

  14. JaLaKaBa says:

    Excellent analysis as always that can’t be found anywhere else. A thought: consider changing title to “The “Milley” Tape”

  15. jecojeco says:

    trump lawyers “reported” they were unable to find these docs is a lot different than these docs being missing forever given how trump has moved docs and limited searches by his lawyers in the past , even giving his lawyers the benefit of the doubt about honest disclosure. Given this background and the presumed importance of the docs still mystified that gov hasn’t been able to make argument that these is sufficient justification to search NJ and other trrump squirrel holes for more “missing” docs.

    trump’s comment “this thing just came up” imlies that someone else had been found it (vs “look what I just found”), maybe it was John Barron. Have to balance trump’s paranoia about who sees has stuff against his laziness, lack of reading interest etc. I don’t think it would be Nauta but maybe someone like Epstyn in trumps innermost circle hiding his activity behind his own attorney –client mental shield. Boris doesn’t sound like someone worried about perjury.

    How soon after the apparent flight of the boxes to NJ from MAL was this audio recording made? (Is it possible that there was more than one transport made since there was limited space to put the boxes to the plane per Cargomistress Melania.)

    I think it will be an eye opener when list of 84 witnesses goes public and may explain why some familiar trump eye candy has gone missing recently…

    • jdmckay8 says:

      Is it possible that there was more than one transport made (to Bedminster)

      Of course it is possible. Over 2 years of opportunity to do so, and nobody outside of
      Trump’s circle watching. This was discussed here a couple weeks ago.

      Even if Trump’s pilot filed a flight plan(s), no way of knowing what was onboard.

      If what you were thinking was is it known (as in evidence) he did so, unless someone has flipped and said as much, the answer is no.

  16. SomeGuyInMaine says:

    I think Trump is lying when he says “this just came up.”

    Third person construction, big fat lie of omission. Reminds me of a Matt Groening cartoon×1194.jpg

    He kept the doc, searched for the doc, and found the doc — to use just like this.

    [FYI – link to this image edited because original link attempted to download when the link was clicked — not acceptable here. /~Rayne]

    • Eichhörnchen says:

      My first reaction to “this just came up” was that it had just been transported from MAL.

    • SomeGuyInMaine says:

      Thanks Rayne.
      Not intentional. If I knew what to edit to avoid that I would have.

      Diligent moderating efforts on this site greatly appreciated.

  17. Super Nintendo Chalmers says:

    Serial sexual assaulter Donnie the Diddler calling ANYONE a pervert is the epitome of chutzpah.

  18. rattlemullet says:

    The man is clearly a danger to the security of the nation. Documents that were in his possession are missing. He could still expose those at any time. Has anyone ever before been so flagrant about the retention and sharing of classified materials not been arrested and held until trial? I know it would be a shot across the bow to the political system but he should incarcerated until trial. I guess he just didn’t post them on line like Jack Douglas Teixeira. It must be different to just be a braggart.

  19. Peterr says:

    Do we know who the ghostwriter for Mark Meadows’ memoirs is? This person is the one who recorded the meeting in the first place, and therefore could have been the one who provided it to CNN.

    If so, it could have been because of a relationship that person had with someone at CNN, who knew about the tape and pressed for a copy. Alternatively, the ghostwriter could have done so after a nod and a wink from Team Trump.

    • harpie says:

      I think I read Trump had a staffer who recorded it.

      Added: Oh yeah, this is where: Marcy:
      1:00 AM · Jun 27, 2023

      One more point: Trump INDEPENDENTLY has this recording — it was recorded by his employee for his benefit, and after she was asked about it, lawyers reviewed it.

      But Trump will be prohibited from leaking stuff he ONLY obtained thru discovery.

    • Marinela says:

      I was wondering about who leaked the video to CNN.
      It sounds like it was the staffer with Trump’s approval or Trump itself.
      Then Trump turns around and accuses Jack Smith that he leaked it.
      In this case, why is the prosecutor silent about this misrepresentation?
      How do you prevent a lying criminal from poisoning the jury pool?

  20. Alexi_01NOV2019_1803h says:

    I want to be sick.

    A malignant narcissist as a politician isn’t the most shocking thing in the world. It’s his popularity. His popularity is a symptom of something deeply wrong with a large portion of our body politic and the right wing press that endlessly supports and enables him.

    [Welcome to emptywheel. SECOND REQUEST: Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We are moving to a new minimum standard to support community security. Because your username is far too common, it will be temporarily changed to match the date/time of your first known comment until you have a new compliant username. Please note you were asked a year ago April to use a differentiated name. Thanks. /~Rayne]

    • Ravenous hoarde says:

      I was the same way on 1/6. I was heartened when I heard McConnell, Graham, and even Kevin speak up against Trump. Then the equivocations and ass kissing hand waving started. Then I finally stepped out of denial and accepted what this country is dealing with.

      We can encourage people to vote and share tidbits we find via sites like these.

      But there is no reasoning with this rabid contingent imo. Not when their own leaders are willing to lie and obstruct on Trump’s behalf. There is no Nixonian come to Jesus moment coming imo.

      I’ve accepted that “we’re surrounded”. And the problem is therefore simplified. I’m a huge “both sider” by nature. These malcontents have disabused me of that inclination for now. So no more queasiness for any of their most ridiculous nonsense.

      • RealAlexi says:

        There are a number of things about Dems that irk me. I’m basically a “Scoop Jackson democrat”; though I’ve always been registered independent. I’m to the right on (some) foreign policy and way to the left on domestic policy; from civil rights to healthcare to taxes etc.

        You might call me a “carnivorous dove”. I’ve been doing the bosthsiderisms* for a long long time, but pretty much always vote D.

        It’s seems the GOP is now just a gaslighting outrage machine incapable of shame or conscience. It’s been coming since Rush Limbaugh started making money selling snake oil and hate.

        You’re right; “there is no reasoning with this rabid contingent”.

        Further, they get off on lying to our faces and watching us go apoplectic. They know they’re lying and they know that we know they’re lying. Just like a 4th grade bully who tells you that you GAVE him your lunch money after he ripped it right out of your hand.

        For the crazies it’s about BOTH the lunch money and the fun of getting away with it PUBLICLY.

        It’s sadistic. The cruelty’s the point.

        Anyway, yes we’re surrounded. Lets focus where we can make political improvements and on keeping each other sane ;-))

    • RealAlexi says:

      Hey Rayne,

      Name is now updated!


      [Thanks for updating your username to meet the 8 letter minimum. /~Rayne]

  21. Dan Miller says:

    Question for bmaz; Sans a witness from the meeting who could testify to the detail of the report Trump was waving around, wouldn’t it be relatively easy for a defense attorney to poke holes in this recording’s legitimacy as just more of Trump’s well-documented bloviating?

  22. Bears7485 says:

    Question for bmaz; Sans a witness from the meeting who could testify to the detail of the report Trump was waving around, wouldn’t it be relatively easy for a defense attorney to poke holes in this recording’s legitimacy as just more of Trump’s well-documented bloviating?

    • KayKinMD says:

      Isn’t the evidentiary point of this tape that Trump knows he has Secret documents, that they are not declassified, and that he cannot, now that he is no longer president, declassify them? He’s not being charged for “waving around” this classified document. My understanding is that this tape is just supposed to be evidence of his state of mind.

      • Ravenclaw says:

        Also (though secondary) that he is careless with information bearing on national defense, sharing it when he so desires.

        Noteworthy that this document is not among those charged and has not, to date, been found. There *could* be a second search-and-seizure in Bedminster with a fresh set of charges filed in New Jersey. Though I’m not sure Smith wants to complicate things that way.

      • timbozone says:

        It’s hard to imagine that Trump’s legal counsel wouldn’t attempt to get this blocked from being used as evidence in the trial. Whether they will get Judge Cannon to go along with such a motion is unclear.

    • Tom Christopher says:

      I agree. What is needed (if he really HAD the classified document with him, and indeed actually showed it to someone in the room (as opposed to waving it but not showing it, which would be bad, but not a disclosure of any security details) is the actual testimony of someone present who actually was able to read text and view it. That would result in jail time for sure in normal circumstances. But, these are not normal times, and as we saw with OJ, jury nullification is a real possibility in Florida. All it takes is one Trump MAGA person on the jury, who has not been active at rallies or social media and so the prosecutors can’t determine their political persuasion. Which is why I’m hoping Smith also brings indictments for NJ happenings. Of course, there is also the Georgia investigation and the Jan. 6th insurrection. I suspect many indictments in both cases.

  23. Benoit Roux says:

    As astonishing as it seems, I agree that DJT is probably the leaker of this recording. Already this morning, his spokesperson Steven Cheung is mainly emphasizing the irrelevant Hillary and Anthony Weiner jokes on the tape, which is obviously intended to distract from the crime being committed by DJT in broad daylight. Based on what we hear, there is no doubt that the classified document is there, in his hands, and that he is showing it to the people around the table and they have time to read some of it (“Wow”). But we don’t need to speculate, those people will testify that they were shown the document.

    • Ravenous hoarde says:

      “ those people will testify that they were shown the document.”

      Lol, I wouldn’t be surprised to see one of the cabbages throw themselves on that grenade in hope for a pardon.

      But your comment makes me chuckle at how the playbook stays the same. Their lack of imagination and creativity is fantastic.He’ll be whispering Hillary on his deathbed Rosebud style.

  24. harpie says:

    TRUMP: See as president I could have declassified it.
    STAFFER: Yeah. [Laughter]

    TRUMP: “When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.”

  25. Emily_07JUN2008_1446h says:

    Who is the aide?

    [Welcome to emptywheel. Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We are moving to a new minimum standard to support community security. Because your username is far too common it will be temporarily changed to match the date/time of your first known comment until you have a new compliant username. Lastly, you have commented before as “Emily68” and have now forgotten that username 2x. Please be sure to make a note of your new compliant username and use it every time you comment. Thanks. /~Rayne]

    • -mamake- says:

      Rayne – no date/time added to Emily. Am sure you’ll catch this later, but this in case not.

      [Thanks — I had three Comments windows open and closed the wrong one at the wrong time. Oops! /~Rayne]

  26. Sabine Farm says:

    I know it is obvious: only a person with no sense of shame would release this recording.After all these years of outrageous acts,Trump still has a”WOW” factor.

  27. Amicus12 says:

    So, the first overt reaction. I keep thinking about the indictment and prosecution in terms of provocation.

    Yes, there is a criminal law purpose in charging 31 separate documents, but it’s provocative, as is the nature and detail of the documents.

    The same is true with the Bedminster story, the lead in of the removal of documents and the summation of the taped conversation
    The proposed schedule is provocative. Again, all of this coincides with a proper prosecutorial purpose, but I cannot escape the sense that it is deliberately provocative for broader purposes. Trying to get Nauta to flip is an obvious purpose.

    But the dynamics of provocation, is provocation, reaction, assessment. Who is watching whom, to what end?

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      What’s provocative is Trump’s conduct, not the indictment’s description of it. The charging looks routine.

      I imagine Smith’s team is working hard to get Nauta to flip, but it will be hell prying him from Trump’s cold grasp. He seems to have a Rasputin-like hold on those who choose to work for him. Some of them will put up with Rikers to avoid displeasing him.

  28. harpie says:
    8:26 PM · Jun 26, 2023

    Wow CNN got the tape of Trump’s conversation about classified documents [VIDEO]

    CNN Transcript [from VIDEO]:

    TRUMP: These are bad sick people, but …
    STAFFER: That was your coup, you know, against you.
    TRUMP: Well, it started right at the …
    STAFFER: Like when Milley is talking about, “oh, you were going to try to do a coup.” No, they were trying to do that before you even were sworn in.
    [0:16] UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That’s right.
    STAFFER: Trying to overthrow your election.

    TRUMP: Well, with Milley-uh, let me see that, I’ll show you an example. He said that I wanted to attack Iran.
    [0:27] TRUMP: Isn’t it amazing? I have a big pile of papers, this thing just came up. Look. [PAPERS SHUFFLING] This was him. They presented me this – this is off the record – but they presented me this. This was him. This was the Defense Department and him.
    [0:44] WRITER: Wow.
    TRUMP: We looked at some. This was him. This wasn’t done by me, this was him. All sorts of stuff – pages long, look.
    STAFFER: Mm.

    TRUMP: Wait a minute, let’s see here. [PAPERS SHUFFLING]
    [0:55] UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Oh my gosh.
    STAFFER: [Laughter] Yeah.
    TRUMP: I just found, isn’t that amazing? This totally wins my case, you know.
    STAFFER: Mm-hm.
    TRUMP: Except it is like, highly confidential.
    [1:06] STAFFER: Yeah. [Laughter]
    TRUMP: Secret. This is secret information. Look, look at this. You attack, and …

    STAFFER: Hillary would print that out all the time, you know.
    TRUMP: She’d send it …
    STAFFER: Her private emails.
    [1:15] TRUMP: No, she’d send it to Anthony Weiner.
    MULTIPLE: (Laughter) Yeah.
    TRUMP: The pervert.
    STAFFER: Please print.

    TRUMP: By the way. Isn’t that incredible?
    STAFFER: Yeah.
    [1:23] TRUMP: I was just thinking, because we were talking about it. And you know, he said, “he wanted to attack Iran, and what …”
    TRUMP: These are the papers.
    STAFFER: You did.
    TRUMP: This was done by the military and given to me. Uh, I think we can probably, right?
    [1:39] STAFFER: I don’t know, we’ll, we’ll have to see. Yeah, we’ll have to try to – TRUMP: Declassify it.
    STAFFER: – figure out a – yeah.
    TRUMP: See as president I could have declassified it.
    STAFFER: Yeah. [Laughter]
    [1:46] TRUMP: Now I can’t, you know, but this is still a secret.
    STAFFER: Yeah. [Laughter] Now we have a problem.

    TRUMP: Isn’t that interesting?
    STAFFER: Yeah
    TRUMP: It’s so cool, I mean, it’s so, look, her and I, and you probably almost didn’t believe me, but now you believe me.
    [1:56] WRITER: No, I believed you.
    TRUMP: It’s incredible, right?
    WRITER: No, they never met a war they didn’t want.

    TRUMP: Hey, bring some, uh, bring some Cokes in please. [2:02]

      • harpie says:


        Did you hear any male voices besides TRUMP? [ie: in the laughter]
        The STAFFER has a funny way of saying the word “coup”.
        Do you think CNN got all of the background comments, etc, correct?
        [I’ll have to wait a while before I can listen to his voice again…blech!]

        • Rayne says:

          Ugh, he’s just so repulsive. I had to listen to that a second time to listen for any other male voices and now I just want to barf.

          I couldn’t hear any males reacting in any way. Is this how he thinks he can earn women’s attentions, by whipping out his big pile of classified documents?

          It sounded like CNN got all the comments in the transcript, some not much more than murmurs they still picked up.

          ADDER: a lagniappe for having to go through that traumatizing audio again —

          (via Smudge the Insult Cat)

        • harpie says:

          LOL! [the “decor”]

          Thanks for listening to it for me. I agree, CNN seems to have caught everything…pretty impressive!

        • subtropolis says:

          hahaha! As with the atrocities happening in Ukraine, we can be thankful that there remain bucketsful of humour — much of it satisfyingly dark — surrounding the catastrophic nightmare that is Donald Trump.

          That’s the second time in as many weeks that i’ve seen reference to lagniappe, btw.

          OT: Rayne, did you possibly link to the wrong toot of Teri Kanefield in this comment of yours from June 17? If not, could you please explain what you’d meant? She doesn’t appear to be referencing classified docs she’d seen online. Or am i having a comprehension failure?

        • Rayne says:

          When I read that and other posts elsewhere in social media that night, it looked like TFG had fully exposed himself but only Kanefield was making a direct reference to what TFG had done on June 15 before 19:12 ET. She wrote, “He just posted that all of “his” papers (top secret documents) that were taken during the search need to be returned to him because it was an illegal search”, emphasis mine that he posted something like a statement which was highly incriminating, but no one else screencapped it or discussed that night that I could see in my multiple feeds.

          Keep in mind Trump has deleted posts on TruthSocial. I’ve tried to follow up on something he posted within the last month and the original post had disappeared, no archived copy saved in Wayback Machine. It’s the ugliest sort of gaslighting.

        • subtropolis says:

          Thanks. I’d thought that you were suggesting that Kanefield had come across actual sensitive docs that had been posted, then deleted. I suppose that i was thinking that something similar to the Teixeira situation had come about involving some of the files that Trump stole. (Like, maybe Barron had found something and posted it to Discord. haha)

        • Rayne says:

          If you saw what it was Teri was referring to that night, sure, I’d appreciate it. Thanks!

    • Eichhörnchen says:

      I was surprised by how full the room sounded when people were laughing. Also surprised (not sure why) that the laughter sounded sycophantic rather than nervous. I guess Trump’s peeps have the same confidence of impunity that he has.

      • Sue 'em Queequeg says:

        Yes, sycophantic, but to me it sounded as if the commenters seemed uncertain about what to say, in the way subordinates do when they’re trying to say what they think the power person wants to hear but can’t figure out what that is. One can imagine the discomfort in this situation should one guess wrong and blunder into a land mine.

    • harpie says:

      Info from the indictment, which Marcy links to at the top: []

      [p15] 33. On July 21, 2021, when he was no longer president, TRUMP gave an interview in his office at The Bedminster Club to a writer and a publisher in connection with a then-forthcoming book. Two members of TRUMP’s staff also attended the interview, which was recorded with TRUMP’s knowledge and consent. Before the interview, the media had published reports that, at the end of TRUMP’s term as president, a senior military official (the “Senior Military Official”) purportedly feared that TRUMP might order an attack on Country A and that the Senior Military Official advised TRUMP against doing so.

      34. Upon greeting the writer, publisher, and his two staff members, TRUMP stated, “Look what I found, this was [the Senior Military Official’s] plan of attack, read it and just show . . . it’s interesting.” Later in the interview, TRUMP engaged in the following exchange:

      TRUMP: Well, with [the Senior Military Official]—uh, let me see that, I’ll show you an example. [Continues as above]

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        “Look what I found,” sounds like a standard Trumpism. Probably means something like this: “I planned to show you this document that I stole, to prove that I’m still important and can punish whomever I choose. But I wanted it to look casual rather than premeditated.” Sadly for Trump, neither description helps his case.

        • harpie says:

          TRUMP “upon greeting” his guests:
          Look what I found, this was [the Senior Military Official’s] plan of attack, read it and just show . . . it’s interesting.”

          I wonder if that emphasized bit is past tense, or present.

    • -mamake- says:

      Re: the third Trump line up from the bottom…

      Last night (1st time I heard it was on MSNBC), the word “look” popped to my ear anyway. I understand how it is used in conversation to connect phrases. But to me, in that scene he is (as usual) like a child, saying in one way or another, “Look!” I hear it as an imperative.

      And all of the ‘look at me, see what I have, I’m so special’ BS that makes him such a disgusting and reulsive entity.

      Perhaps I’m getting too OCD in my doterage. But I think that word means he has revealed it to others. The woman’s response is close up as if she is seeing what’s on the pages.

    • harpie says:

      Philip BUMP thinks this part of the CNN transcript is NOT correct:
      9:43 AM · Jun 28, 2023

      TRUMP: See as president I could have declassified it.
      STAFFER: Yeah. [Laughter]
      [1:46] TRUMP: Now I can’t, you know, but this is still a secret.
      STAFFER: Yeah. [Laughter] Now we have a problem.

      Bump thinks it should be: “But this is classified.”
      He includes AUDIO at the link.

      He may be right…what do you all think?

  29. bgThenNow says:

    The laughter. It’s creepy, sycophancy. I don’t see DT giving it to CNN, unless plausible deniability or similar.

    • GeeSizzle says:

      Since Cheung is focusing on the “perv” comment and how funny it is to harsh on Weiner this way, the whole incident will be spun as theater, none of it real, just acting, like he did on TV all those years. The MAGA people will buy that hook line and sinker, and THAT is his audience, the jury of 12 Floridians. So unless someone in that room affirms that he was holding up a secret doc, and testifies as to what it was, well, this isn’t so troubling, which is why they leaked it, to get the story all lined up.

      It puts the “we’ve got a problem” quip in a new light: it’s not referencing the fact that he waved around a secret doc to people that aren’t cleared to see it (initially I thought there might be someone in that room not on Team Trump, saying that as almost an internal voice, as in, YOU’VE got a problem, but that’s not the case).

      They are all on board, so the problem is how to get the info into their book, which means the issue is what the actual document was that was the center of the discussion. All they have to do is just deny it was what we know it probably was (classified), and say it was just newspaper clippings, etc. It’s a stretch, but not a big one, if lying is your business. And if you work for Trump, lying is one of the highlighted skills on your resume.

      I’d really like to be wrong about this, but the slipperiness of these people is one of their superpowers. That, combined with the power of delaying justice, is a potent combination. This is what the loyalty thing is all about. No one important can turn, and this is why Trump must run, win, and pardon, potentially. Sickening.

      So, if they play it this way, is there other evidence that can be brought, aside from the fact that those docs are missing and probably got to Bedminster? Or is there some way to put the screws on the staffers likely covering this up to save Trump’s ass?

      • MyraBoByra says:

        Really Good Questions. How do we know DoJ does NOT have the document in question? Being brought into a GJ one at a time, tho, and without counsel? In that circumstance would ALL of them risk lying? Would all of them stick to the same story? Whoever said “WOW” on the tape is the likeliest to have gotten a glimpse, but maybe it was just a glimpse at the cover sheet. What they discussed after the cokes were brought in might actually prove or disprove dissemination. I’m still not clear on why the big D has not been charged. Can the indictment be amended to include it if more evidence turns up?

      • Bittersweet says:

        I can’t help but wonder if he gave the document to the writer he is showing it to. Thus he does not have it to return?

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Improbable. Trump holds onto things, especially classified documents he took the trouble to steal from his last job.

          Had he given it to someone at that meeting, the feds would probably have it by now. After having interviewed several witnesses, they probably know that Trump kept it, just not what happened to it since then.

    • AlisonKLA says:

      The staffer brings up Hillary’s name in a way that sounds like she’s egging Trump on, goosing him with one of his favorite topics. I wonder how many times they throw that name around just to get a rise out of him?

  30. Ravenous hoarde says:

    Comment on the schulte article linked here. I’m a Katie Porter guy myself but I was impressed by Schiff’s statement on Trump. It’s hard for me to remember but it seems Trump was treated with a reasonable amount of deference and respect. Even if he never deserved it and is just as big of an ass as any 90s tabloid reader would have told you.

    “ It would be one thing if the President’s statement were the product of intelligence community discussion and a purposeful decision to disclose information to the public, but that is unlikely to be the case. The President has the power to declassify whatever he wants, but this should be done as the product of thoughtful consideration and with intense input from any agency affected. For anyone else to do what the President may have done, would constitute what he deplores as “leaks.””

    Nice as anyone can put “please don’t do such stupid shit for really no reason”.

      • Clare Kelly says:


        I’m a CA voter.

        Thank you for the pithy summation re Rep Schiff…one I haven’t quite been able to articulate.

        My mind is still open between two candidates given that the primary isn’t until March 5, 2024. (Rep Lee has gathered 212 signatures for WHPA vote, a key issue for me).

        And, as always, thank you for this piece.

        • ExRacerX says:

          Rep. Porter has the uncanny ability to dismantle arguments with surgical precision—she has weaponized the whiteboard.

        • Tech Support says:

          Not my district or state, but I’d vote for her if I could. She’d be a jolt of caffeine to the Senate. Whereas Schiff, as much as I respect him, would melt into the hedge a la Homer Simpson on arrival.

        • Clare Kelly says:

          Your unsubstantiated preference from AZ noted.

          Rep Porter fundraised at a wealthy retirement community in NorCA during one of our atmospheric river pummellings.

          Both Reps Schiff and Rep Lee canceled their events to help their constituents.

          Rep Schiff was in the middle of a pre-planned interview with KQED Forum’s Mina Kim and offered some salient advice with resources.

          At this juncture, I’m not over Porter’s tone deafness and have disdain for “weaponized” anything, really.

          Again, the primary is in March.


        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          I suspect bmaz has plenty of reasons to prefer Porter, as do I. I don’t agree about her tone deafness, but mostly they’re about her politics. She would play better statewide, is much more progressive than Schiff and more energetic than Lee. She doesn’t wait for someone else to lead, she does it herself, and she’s younger than both. That helps in a badly aging Senate. :-)

        • bmaz says:

          Yes. And, I might add that Senator of the fifth largest economy in the world and my next door neighbors does really kind of matter to us peons in Arizona.

        • bmaz says:

          Welp, you will be shocked to know I have thoughts outside AZ I guess. Including as to Russia and Ukraine. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

        • ExRacerX says:

          “I…have disdain for “weaponized” anything, really.”

          If cooperation, discussion and negotiation were happening across the aisle, I’d agree, but it’s just not. Maybe old-school politicking will make a comeback? I hope so for the country’s sake.

          Clarification: The whiteboard is proxy—facts are Porter’s real weapon.

        • emptywheel says:

          In the near future I will write about the ways that J6C did affirmative damage to the DOJ January 6 investigation. SO that might help you decide.

        • bmaz says:

          Then I suppose you will remember me saying that for a very long time. You give credit where due, right Clare?

        • RipNoLonger says:

          I hope and believe that everyone on EmptyWheel understands your positions on the J6C. It’s taken quite a while for me to start to align with them, FWIW. Thanks.

        • JVOJVOJVO says:

          That moment where you see the realization that both things can be true at the same time! ;-)

      • obsessed says:

        After suffering through decades of DiFi, I’ll be thrilled with any of ’em but voting for Porter- she’s got the best combination of intelligence and self-awareness.

        • punaise says:

          Ditto here, although Barbara Lee is my Rep and I respect her positions. Schiff is a distant third on my list.

          Newsom did commit to appointing a woman of color should he get the opportunity. Appointing Lee would be deemed putting a big thumb on the primary scale. Which then suggests an unambitious place-holder, which probably rules out someone like Karen Bass. Someone somewhere suggested Oprah – why not?

          But in all likelihood DiFi Inc. will remain entrenched until the bitter end, so much ado about nothing. And yes, I am aware of the Judiciary Committee filibuster problem for a new Senator.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          If Newsom is forced to appoint a replacement for DiFi, he would be smart to appoint someone not running to replace DiFi. But it’s California.

        • Molly Pitcher says:

          Porter is most definitely my first pick. There are too few in the Senate who can both marshal the facts and hold someone accountable for what the facts show. She is sorely needed.

        • -mamake- says:

          Love Katie but she is more needed in the House – she held her district but another Dem might not. Have respected Barbara Lee since he solo vote against war powers.
          But would be happy w/ any of them.

          And back to the House – if Raskin runs for Senate we could lose another great one there.

        • punaise says:

          That comes as news to me.

          Wikipedia says: Porter declined to seek reelection to the United States House of Representatives in 2024 and became a candidate in the 2024 United States Senate election in California, to succeed retiring incumbent Dianne Feinstein.

        • punaise says:

          close enough for govt. work.

          I guess if she doesn’t get the Senate seat, and if Biden is re-elected, she could be a good choice for a cabinet position.

        • bmaz says:

          You haz guest room? May need to come over so I can vote for her. Unfortunately, Schiff likely wrapped it all up in the last week.

        • punaise says:

          LOL temporary residence granted, no voter fraud worries there…

          On what basis Schiff wraps it up? I haven’t been following closely, but I know he put in an appearance in SF for Pride.

        • bmaz says:

          When the stupid GOP House censured him. He may have had the best hand already, but that probably cinched it. I very much like Porter better, but the early money is probably on Schiff.

        • punaise says:

          OK, fair enough. He certainly had more national exposure, but I’m not convinced that censure seals the deal for him. OTOH I’m not really engaged in the matter yet.

  31. MyraBoByra says:


    1) So given the tape, which sure makes it sound like he had a document in his hand, and the fact that there could be even more on tape after the cokes were served, WHY isn’t Smith bringing the dissemination charge in NJ?

    2) Is it possible the Feds have those in the meeting, as witnesses, but do not yet have the document itself?

    3) If Trump destroyed the document and that can be proved, does that add to possibe charges that can be brought in NJ?

    4) If there is a hung jury and mistrial in Fla can DoJ add charges based on events in NJ and retry the case in NJ?

    5) If Trump can’t find CIPA Competent Counsel, is that the simplest way to drag this out and ensure no trial before the election?

    • Vinnie Gambone says:

      Couldn’t it be he can’t find a cleared lawyer because he isn’t looking for one ?
      Then what ?
      If you can’t afford one, court’s provide.
      Can Cannon set deadline to get one ? I hope Trump is required to be in the courtroom during trial. He sounds pathetically obsequious, if that’s the right word, like he is flirting.

      The female voices and laughter sound young. Suspect one or all were present by virtue of them being
      ” his type”.
      Obviously he is trying to impress them. Their laughter rings of faked titillation, sycophantic, as it has been described by others.
      He sounds like he is in one of his grab them by the pussy moods.

      Intent i think is not an element of the crime, but DOJ hopefully won’t fail to emphasize it, because it would certainly be recognized in the monkey brain of the jurors.

      Wow, indeed.
      Wow is what one female said. Looks like a penis only smaller, is what she was thinking.

    • emptywheel says:

      One possible reason he hasn’t brought a dissemination charge in NJ is because, absent docs in hand or proof of those he disseminated them to, he needs another witness to bring that case. And that witness is named Walt Nauta, probably.

  32. nord dakota says:

    Re: the document, previously all the reporting was that it was prepared by Milley, now apparently not, and lawyers have stated they cannot find it.

    Whether or not this can be disclosed, are defense documents cataloged? Are their people, like prosecutors and DoD, who know exactly what document this would have been?

    • notjonathon says:

      I seriously doubt that there is only one copy of the document, so it’s known what the contents are. The danger is in the revelation of those contents.

    • punaise says:

      It’s not a pee tape; it’s a “me” tape.

      (“But enough about me already. How did you like my last criming spree?”)

        • Molly Pitcher says:

          Trump’s ear worm from “Funny Girl”

          “Have ya guessed yet
          Who’s the best yet?
          If ya ain’t, I’ll tell ya one more time
          You bet your last dime
          In all of the world so far
          I am the greatest, greatest star”

  33. EricMariposa says:

    Trump’s Nixonian “If the president does it, it is not illegal” defense also harkens back to:

    “…the prosecution established that North had performed the acts with which he was charged. North claimed in defense that his superiors approved his actions, that they were justifiable due to the need for covert action to combat communism, and that he had believed his actions to be lawful.”

    Paul Rosenzweig at The Heritage Foundation published an interesting take on ignorance of law.

  34. Savage Librarian says:

    Here is some audio of Susie Wiles for a sample to compare. She even laughs at the end. Maybe some of you have better ears than me, or equipment that can compare the two audios.

    The other staffer must have been Margo Martin, who recorded the July meeting with the writers at Bedminster.

    “Susie Wiles: COVID-19’s Given Trump a ‘Lane’ to Reach Florida Voters | Ext. Interview | THE CIRCUS”

  35. boatgeek says:

    So we have Trump on tape saying he has a classified document. We have witnesses who saw it, and maybe one (the “Wow” person) who read it. At least a couple of those people were interviewed by the GJ. The reporters would have no impetus to lie to the GJ. Assuming that no Iran-invasion-related documents were returned from Bedminster…

    NAL question: is this tape enough probable cause for a search of Bedminster for classified documents? If not, what more information would be required to get a warrant?

    Also: are there reasons why Smith might like to wait to search Bedminster if he has probable cause in hand?

    Finally, a IANA Geologist question: Is ground-penetrating radar (or other remote sensing techniques) good enough to tell what’s in a buried casket? I know it can see things and air spaces in the ground, but don’t know if it can look into air spaces.

  36. Tassy says:

    I still want to know… if trump puts off finding an attorney indefinitely, can the court appoint one? Just what would happen?

  37. Marc in Denver says:

    Assuming evidence of the actual existence of the document in question (like, a file copy from Milley/DoD), and that it appeared to last be seen in Bedminster, could this be the basis for a 793 (f) charge (for a LOST document) in New Jersey?

  38. CovariantTensor says:

    EW, thanks for everything you do, but in particular, the Roger Parloff post answering all the questions I asked a few days ago about Hillary’s emails, and then some. One thing not mentioned even in that indeed thorough debunking is the issue of access. The article details that the server was indeed set up by a professional IT firm. Part of their job–in fact a substantial part–is to be up on current best practices for a public facing Internet server, to implement them, and make their clients aware of them (no weak default passwords like John Podestra’s “password” on his DNC email account, which is a whole other issue). So while it may not have been certified to comply with US government security standards, the probability of some script kiddie running a password cracking program to gain administrative access is small (and there is no allegation I am aware of that anyone ever did). Contrast that with boxes of classified documents in the ballroom, loo, anywhere Corcoran wasn’t looking for them at the moment, and all you needed to get into Mar-a Lago was a paid membership. One Chinese spy was detected which means, by logical induction, there were probably more who were undetected. No wonder programs had to be burned (which we don’t know for sure, but it’s very likely).

    Another thing that doesn’t seem to get much attention is the documents strewn haphazardly on the floor that Nauta stupidly documented photographically on his cell phone. Doesn’t that suggest someone may have been rummaging through them while no one was watching? Though that someone may have been Trump himself.

    • RitaRita says:

      The indictment photo of the fallen boxes with their contents strewn on the floor showed newspapers, photos of what appears to be Trump on a runway and intermingled was the document with the classified markings.

      I thought of that photo when I heard the audio of Trump in Bedminster. Has he organized his “boxes” so that he can pull out press clippings, photos, or classified documents for his inevitable Trump Highlights film, playing on endless loop at the Trump Museum? Or is he just curating based on topics that he thinks are controversial and likely to come up? The audio does make me think that he was loaded for bear (so to speak) when the Mark Meadow biographer showed up.

    • jdmckay8 says:

      be up on current best practices for a public facing Internet server

      Yes, Hillary tried to keep thing secure & demonstrated no intent to do “funny stuff”. But it was still hacked. Not her emails, someone else on that serve according to the FBI (as I recall). Just saying.

      I recall a year or 2 into GWB’s 1st term, and it was pretty clear there was a lot of “funny stuff” going on, it was reported repeatedly that virtually all of Junior’s inner circle/cabinet were conducting official business on mail servers hosted by a few very influential and opaque GOP groups. That meant no email records. Probably someone here has more complete memory of that episode than I do. But I recall at the time, reading about those email shenanigans, it was a precursor to some really bad things. And, it was.

      • emptywheel says:

        No. In fact it was NOT hacked. Chuck Grassley kept pushing FBI to find that it was but there was no evidence of that.

        • jdmckay8 says:

          I said that based on statement here:

          Ever since Hillary Clinton admitted setting up a homebrew server in the basement of her Chappaqua home, one question has always hovered over the case: Did that system ever get hacked? On Friday, the FBI revealed that a hacker broke into an email account on that system.

          In a summary of its investigation into Clinton’s use of private email released Friday, the FBI concluded that a username and password for an email account on the server — it’s not clear whose email beyond that it belonged to a woman working as an aide to former President Bill Clinton — was compromised by an unknown entity. That entity logged into the compromised email, read messages, and browsed attachments using a service called Tor.

          If you are making distinction between a “hack” and “breach” I sit corrected. If not, I don’t know basis of you saying that (but you are almost always right).

        • jdmckay8 says:

          don’t know what “homebrew” is. I’m guessing you have low opinion of FP. The co-authors have been around quite a while, have good resumes.

          I’ll peruse the linked FBI docs tonight and see what I can find.

        • Ichibod Crane says:

          Homebrew was/is a common term for Apple geeks (of which I is one) that set up home servers and such. I don’t argue that there can be an implied slur, but the term could be used to describe a home network.

        • jdmckay8 says:

          The “breach” was as described in the FB article. See pg. 29, here. File is: Hillary R. Clinton Part 01, from FBI’s vault page on the server here. It happened in 2013.

          Note to self: clean up my “hack” and “breach” language.

        • jdmckay8 says:

          FWIW, I’m guessing Grassley (and/or staff) didn’t read the whole report. There’s statements in the doc I linked in previous pages that say, with no context, the server was not compromised. My first thought was ok, I had it wrong, underbus myself. But I kept reading.

          Maybe Grassley’s team read those and decided it was time for lunch. T’heehee.

  39. vicks says:

    What are the implications of the “leaked” recording referencing the same classified information (that Trump may or may not have been lying about) discussed in Meadow’s book?
    If Trump was seeking “retribution” via back doors, are there other places where connections could be established?
    “Meadows’ autobiography includes an account of what appears to be the same meeting, during which Trump “recalls a four-page report typed up by (Trump’s former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) Mark Milley himself. It contained the general’s own plan to attack Iran, deploying massive numbers of troops, something he urged President Trump to do more than once during his presidency.”

  40. harpie says:

    Rayne, here are the screencaps of, and links to the comments Kanefield was talking about, you can find them at her post, here:

    Trump’s Second Indictment, Part III: Trump Confessed. Now let’s bust a few myths. [Saturday] June 17, 2023

    […] On Thursday [> 6/15/23], Trump posted this on Truth Social: [Text from and links to 2 all-caps Trump posts.]

    1] 6/15/23 5:10 PM [TZ?] TRUMP post 1] […] EVERYTHING THAT WAS ILLEGALLY TAKEN […] [> not docs specifically]

    2] 6/15/23 19:12 [TZ?] KANEFIELD post re: “off his rocker”


    • Rayne says:

      Thanks, harpie. She hadn’t linked that comment back to her posts which made it seem more emphatic.

      • harpie says:

        Yes. When you put up her comment on Mastodon, I looked around, too. She didn’t post the article until the weekend. I’m just assuming from the times that these are most likely the ones she was referring to with her initial comment that you saw.

  41. Savage Librarian says:

    NYT says Liz Harrington is one of the women on the Milley Tape:

    “One of the women heard speaking on the recording was Ms. Harrington, three people with knowledge of the matter said. Ms. Harrington, one of Mr. Trump’s most aggressive defenders on Twitter, did not respond to questions about whether she is one of the voices talking on the recording as Mr. Trump appears to show a piece of paper.”

    “Ms. Harrington; Ms. Martin, who worked for Mr. Trump in the White House; and the other participants in the meeting could be important witnesses if Mr. Trump’s case goes to trial, since they can provide firsthand descriptions of what he was showing as he discussed the Iran plan. A lawyer for Ms. Martin declined to comment.”

  42. Rayne says:

    Try overtyping whatever is in the Name field already, for starters, before clicking on Publish. Let us know what browser you’re on if this doesn’t work.

    • Wajimsays says:

      Rayne, here goes. I’m running Safari 16.5.1 if this doesn’t fly

      [w00t!!! It worked! Good on you, commenter henceforth known as “Wajimsays”! /~Rayne]

  43. HorsewomaninPA says:

    I find the whole recording disturbing, but the jokey way the document was discussed and the laughter…sickening and so unbecoming a commander in chief / former one.

  44. soundgood2 says:

    Trump said today he didn’t “see” the recording. Makes me wonder, did the assistant who recorded the meeting use her iphone? Could their be a video???

  45. Connor Lynch says:

    “In this case, Trump independently owns copies of the recording, which was made for his own purpose.”

    In the clip below, Trump says “I didn’t even see the recording.” I believe he means that he did not come away from the interview with the ghostwriters with a copy of the recording. I think he and his attorneys violated the protective order.

  46. bmaz says:

    WaJim – That was deleted. Thank you for the response, but we are not going to allow such personal information out in public.

    [What was deleted? The browser he’s running isn’t a problem, just anything more specific like his email or IP address. /~Rayne]

  47. harpie says:

    Peter Sztrzok is on a brilliant roll riffing off This TRUMP quote from the NYT:

    TRUMP: “‘Did I use the word plans?’ [] ‘What I’m referring to is magazines, newspapers, plans of buildings. I had plans of buildings. You know, building plans? I had plans of a golf course.’”

    This is the first one, but he’s not threading them :-( :
    [There are three more, so far…I hope he keeps going.]
    9:09 PM · Jun 27, 2023

    Did I say Milley? What I’m referring to is Millay, Edna St Vincent Millay, very woke poet, won the Pulitzer which is corruption on a scale never seen before.

    My secrets fill Bedminster
    They will not be turned over
    But ah you losers and oh you suckers
    Bring some Cokes in please

  48. Molly Pitcher says:

    Savage Librarian you were ABSOLUTELY right, the second woman in the Bedford tape IS Susie Wiles !!

    ABC 11 just posted this on their site and broadcast it. You have an ear ma’am !!'s, September%20of%202021%2C%20sources%20said.

    Rayne, I don’t see a question mark, so I put a space before September. Correct this if need be.

Comments are closed.