The Wall Street Journal on Wednesday published an editorial written by Michael Bekesha of the right-wing organization Judicial Watch that declares former President Donald Trump innocent of any crimes based on precedent established during litigation surrounding the Presidential Records Act.
The editorial caught the attention of conservative legal expert Ed Whelan, who wrote on Twitter that Bekesha had written a "bizarro world account" of the Presidential Records Act.
To start, Whelan argues that Bekesha "makes wild wrong turn in his very first sentence" by incorrectly arguing that the criminal charges being brought against Trump are predicated on the Presidential Records Act, when nothing of the sort is true.
Added to this, Whelan notes that "classified docs Trump retained were agency records outside scope of PRA," which he said specifically excludes such documents as being classified as presidential records.
DON'T MISS: Watch: GOP lawmaker quickly changes the subject when confronted by specifics of Trump indictment
And even if the initial premise of Bekesha's column is correct, Whelan writes, he would still be completely wrong about the substance of the PRA.
"Insofar as classified materials that Trump retained fall under PRA, they are obviously not 'personal records,'" he writes. "Nothing in PRA remotely suggests that former president may take and retain classified materials. PRA sharply limits possessory rights of former presidents."
Trump and his allies have cited the Presidential Records Act as exonerating the president from charges of illegally retaining top-secret government documents even though the act plainly states that "the United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records" and makes no exceptions that involve potentially stashing nuclear secrets in a luxury bathroom.