"There Can Be But One 'Sordello!' But Sordello, and My Sordello?"--Old Ez

Whoa. Trump's own people recorded him talking about having top secret Pentagon planning on Iran and saying he couldn't show it because it was classified - blowing up his argument that he had declassified all the documents he took. This is a year before the subpoena and raid. https://t.co/Us4fg67OV4

— Helen Kennedy (@HelenKennedy) May 31, 2023

Speaking of "evidence."

The tape was not a secret recording; nearly all if not all of Trump’s book interviews were recorded in 2021. https://t.co/798IvJIcFI

— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) May 31, 2023

Which is it?  A recording by "Trump's own people"?  Or a recording of a book interview, which probably "Trump's own people" recorded concurrently, for purposes of the record?

Small differences make a big difference in the court of public opinion.  By which I mean to underline the importance of rules of evidence, which try to channel the jury's attention onto "relevant facts," and away from irrelevant ones.

I don't know that it makes a difference why these recordings were made.  But if Trump did it for a book interview (or several), it's a different implication in the public record than if his own staff were taping him unbeknownst to cover their own asses.  Which is what's implied in the first report.

The second tweet makes it a whole different kettle of fish entirely (and explains why Trump hasn't already fired the staff member on whose computer these recordings were found).  Of such differences are jury decisions made.  In this example, the rules of evidence in court will probably keep one explanation for the reason for the recording out, and let only one in.  That's what rules of evidence are for.  But in the court of public opinion, there are no rules of evidence.  I'm sure there are many more speculative tweets out there.

Trying to game out the legal strategy, or progress of an investigation, or what the odds of indictment/conviction are, is a mug's game.  Remember the day of Trump's indictment in Manhattan?  Many legal beagles harrumphed over the paucity of information in the filings of the DA's office.  They were sure the case was improvidently brought, that it wouldn't lead directly to a conviction (do no pass "Go," do not collect $200), that the whole case was a non-starter and an embarassment not worth of the attention of a great nation or to be brought against an ex-president (funny how prosecutors are blamed rather than the ex-president who acted in so criminal a manner in so many ways).  And then the DA filed further papers, as they had always planned to and in accordance with ordinary legal procedure in that court.  Suddenly all the harrumphing legal beagles were certain Trump would be buried under the jail; or at least have a very difficult time avoiding justice.

Watch the donut, not the hole.  What is said outside of court is meaningless.  What is said in the courtroom is all that matters.  And what the jury will do is unknown to even the most seasoned trial lawyers.  We live in hope.  We live in the present.  The future will do what it will do, despite our best efforts to predict it far in advance.