Former U.S. attorney cites 2008 court ruling that sticks a knife in key Trump documents defense

In a series of tweets on Sunday morning, former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance poured cold water over a possible Donald Trump defense strategy to avoid prosecution for taking sensitive government documents with him after he lost re-election.

With a grand jury reportedly convening this week and special counsel Jack Smith appearing to be on the verge of filing indictments for obstruction and possible violations of the Espionage Act, against the former president, Vance said a defense strategy deployed by lawyers for a former NSA staffer was shot down 15 years ago and won't be of help to Trump's lawyers now.

In her first tweet, Vance wrote, "In 2008, the 4th Circuit affirmed Kenneth Wayne Ford’s convictions for retaining national defense information in violation of the espionage act & making false statements to the government. Ford was an NSA computer specialist for two years, with a top security clearance," before adding, "The FBI searched his home & found sensitive & classified info in places including his kitchen & his bedroom. He acknowledged taking the documents home on his last day of employment, claiming he thought the materials would help him in his new job with a defense contractor."

RELATED: Legal experts create 186-page roadmap for Jack Smith 'to obtain and sustain a conviction' in Trump docs case

As she notes, a former Trump administration official, Rod Rosenstein, made the case against Kenneth Wayne Ford -- which would also apply to Trump.

"Then-Maryland U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein (who would later become Trump’s deputy attorney general) said, 'Government employees who betray the public trust and endanger national security must be held accountable,' at the time of Ford’s sentencing to 72 months in custody," she explained before adding, "Rosenstein’s comment applies full force to Trump. Ford is one of many prior DOJ cases that helps distinguish when gov't employees who retain classified documents should be prosecuted. Trump should. More on this legal analysis in my newsletter: https://open.substack.com/pub/joycevance"

She then elaborated, "The comparable cases are about 'fed'l employees'--a former POTUS has never been prosecuted for this (or any other crime). Trump can't claim he wasn't a fed'l employee as POTUS because in the E. Jean Carroll case he argued he was one in order to obtain DOJ representation."

"If you are looking for a comprehensive review of the prior precedent DOJ has reviewed in considering a classified documents case, as well as a thorough analysis of possible charges against Trump, take a look here. No better resource," she concluded.