He CAUGHT On Camera As Witness REVEALS “I Saw Him Hide Documents”? | Jack Smith 

This morning at 7:41 a.m., federal prosecutors filed a motion that includes security camera footage no one knew existed. And before you think this is another piece of circumstantial evidence that will be debated for months, I need you to understand what we are dealing with here. I am not talking about witness testimony that can be challenged.

 I am not talking about documents that can be explained away. I am talking about video evidence showing the defendant physically moving boxes of documents on the same day. Federal investigators requested their preservation. And I’m talking about a witness who was in the room saying under oath, “I saw him hide documents from the FBI.

 I have prosecuted obstruction cases for 30 years. I have seen defendants try to destroy evidence. I have seen elaborate schemes to conceal documents, but I have never seen someone caught on camera doing exactly what a witness describes with timestamps that match the moment investigators were on their way.” And here is what makes this evidence so devastating.

 This is not one piece of evidence that can be attacked. This is video corroborating witness testimony, corroborating a timeline that proves consciousness of guilt. When you have all three, defense attorneys do not go to trial. They negotiate plea deals. So, here is what I am going to do. I’m going to walk you through the security camera footage frame by frame.

 I am going to show you the witness statement that describes exactly what the video shows. And I am going to explain why this evidence proves obstruction of justice beyond any reasonable doubt. Because here is what this proves. The defendant knew investigators were coming. The defendant knew what documents they wanted and the defendant moved those documents to hide them.

 That is obstruction. And when it is on video with a witness confirming it, that is a conviction waiting to happen. I will be covering this case as it moves toward trial. evidence, not spin. If you want to understand how obstruction cases are actually proven, stay with me. Now, let me show you exactly what is on that security footage and why it destroys every defense.

 Let me walk you through the video because every frame matters. The footage comes from the internal security system at Mara Lago. The property has cameras in hallways, storage areas, and office spaces. This footage was subpoenaed six months ago, but was only produced last week after prosecutors threatened contempt charges. The footage is from June 2nd, 2023.

 That date is critical. On June 1st, federal investigators sent a letter to the defendants’s attorneys stating they would arrive on June 3rd to collect documents responsive to a grand jury subpoena. That subpoena demanded all classified documents be turned over immediately. The security footage shows what happened in the 24 hours between that notification and the scheduled visit. Came

ra 1 timestamp 217 p.m. June 2nd when tu the video shows the defendant entering a storage room on the ground floor of Mara Lago. He is alone. He is not accompanied by attorneys or staff. He enters the room and the door closes behind him. The camera angle does not show the interior of the room, but the timestamp shows he remains inside for 23 minutes. Camera 2.

 Time stamp 2:40 p.m. The defendant exits the storage room. He is now carrying a cardboard box. The box appears full based on how the defendant is holding it with both hands. The defendant walks down the hallway toward the residence area of the property. Camera 3. Timestamp 2:44 p.m. The defendant enters his personal office.

 He is still carrying the box. The door closes. Timestamp 2:51 p.m. The defendant exits the office. He is no longer carrying the box. Camera 4. Time stamp 3:03 p.m. The defendant returns to the storage room. He enters again. Timestamp 3:19 p.m. He exits carrying another box. Same pattern. He walks to his office.

 The box does not come back out. Camera 5. Time stamp 3:35 p.m. The defendant makes a third trip. Storage room to office. Another box moved. This pattern repeats six times over the course of 2 hours. Six boxes moved from the storage room to the personal office on June 2nd, the day before federal investigators were scheduled to arrive.

 Now, let me show you why this video is devastating. The grand jury subpoena specifically demanded documents located in the ground floor storage room. Federal investigators had been told by the defendant’s attorneys that all responsive documents were in that storage room. The video shows the defendant personally removing boxes from that exact room the day before investigators arrived.

 When investigators showed up on June 3rd, they were given access to the storage room. They found documents, but the attorney provided a certification stating that a diligent search had been conducted, and all responsive documents were being turned over. 3 months later, the FBI executed a search warrant. They found classified documents in the defendant’s personal office, the sameoffice the security footage shows him carrying boxes into on June 2nd.

 Now, let me show you the witness statement that corroborates this video. The witness is a staff member who worked at Mara Lago. The witness was granted immunity in exchange for truthful testimony. This is the witness statement filed under oath. Quote, on June 2nd, 2023, I was working in the hallway near the storage area.

 I saw the defendant enter the storage room alone. This was unusual because he typically did not go into that room. I asked if he needed help moving anything. He said no and told me to make sure no one came down that hallway. About 20 minutes later, he came out carrying a box. I asked where he was taking it.

 He said to his office and told me not to mention this to anyone. He said the boxes contain personal items and he did not want staff going through them. Over the next 2 hours, I saw him make multiple trips carrying boxes from the storage room to his office. I counted six boxes total. The next day, federal agents arrived. I was told to direct them to the storage room.

 I noticed that the storage room had fewer boxes than I remembered from previous times I had been in there. I did not say anything to the agents at the time because the defendant had told me not to discuss the boxes. End quote. This witness statement describes exactly what the video shows. The defendant moving boxes the storage room to the office. Six boxes total.

 The date June 2nd matches the timeline matches. The location matches. When you have video evidence and witness testimony that align perfectly, that is what prosecutors call a corroborated case. Now, let me show you why this proves obstruction of justice. Federal obstruction of justice requires three elements.

 Element one, there was an official proceeding. The grand jury investigation was an official proceeding. The subpoena was issued by a federal grand jury. That element is beyond dispute. Element two, the defendant knew about the proceeding. The defendant’s attorneys received the letter on June 1st informing them investigators would arrive June 3rd.

 The defendant knew. Element three, the defendant took action with intent to impede the proceeding. This is where the video becomes devastating. The defendant moved boxes out of the storage room that was specifically identified in the subpoena. He moved them the day before investigators arrived. He told the witness not to mention it.

 And when investigators searched months later, they found classified documents in the office where the boxes were moved. That is not coincidence. That is intent to conceal evidence from federal investigators. The timing proves it. The secrecy proves it. And the fact that classified documents were later found in that office proves the boxes contained exactly what investigators were looking for.

 But let me show you why the defense arguments fail. Defense one, just organizing his office. If organizing, you do not tell staff not to mention it or move boxes the day before investigators arrive from the exact location they were told to search. Defense two did not know what was in boxes. The witness says the defendant told staff boxes contain personal items that shows he looked inside.

 Defense three, just moving property around his own home. When a grand jury subpoena says preserved documents in a specific location, moving them is obstruction. Defense 4, boxes might not have contained classified documents. FBI found classified documents in the office months later. Video shows boxes moved to that office the day before investigators came.

 Every defense crumbles when you have video, witness testimony, and classified documents found exactly where video shows boxes being moved. Now, let me show you what happens next because this evidence changes everything. This motion was filed this morning. It includes the video as an exhibit. It includes the witness statement and it requests that the court admit this evidence at trial.

 The defense will oppose the motion. They will argue the video is taken out of context. They will argue the witness is not credible. They will argue this proves nothing. But here is the legal reality. Video evidence is almost always admissible. It is not hearsay. It is not opinion. It is a recording of what actually happened.

 The witness statement is admissible because the witness will testify at trial and can be cross-examined. The defense can challenge the witness, but they cannot exclude the testimony. When this evidence is admitted, and it will be, the prosecution will play the video for the jury. They will walk through it timestamp by timestamp.

 They will put the witness on the stand to describe what they saw. And they will show the jury that three months later, the FBI found classified documents in the exact location the video shows boxes being moved. That is a story a jury can understand. You do not need to be a lawyer. You do not need to understand complex legal theories. You just need towatch the video and hear the witness.

The defendant moved boxes to hide them from investigators. Period. Based on 30 years prosecuting these cases, when evidence is this clear, defense attorneys negotiate. They call prosecutors asking, “What do you want to avoid trial?” Because going to trial with this evidence is malpractice. Obstruction carries 20 years with video, witness, and classified documents found in the location shown.

 Conviction is certain. The only question is sentencing. Prosecutors use this as leverage. Plead guilty, cooperate. We recommend lower sentence. Fight at trial. We ask for maximum. But this defendant has never accepted plea deals. Every case fought to the end. So maybe this goes to trial. And if it does, this video will be the centerpiece played in opening statements, shown to every witness, referenced in closing arguments.

 Let me tell you why this matters beyond one case. Obstruction of justice is not a technical crime. It is an attack on the legal system itself. When you hide evidence from investigators, you are saying the law does not apply to you. You are saying your ability to conceal the truth is more important than the systems ability to find it. That cannot be tolerated.

 If someone can move boxes to hide classified documents and face no consequences because they are powerful, then obstruction laws only apply to the powerless. That is a system that does not work. This video evidence and witness testimony are a test. Can the system prove obstruction when someone tries to hide evidence? Can video and witness statements lead to accountability? We are about to find out. The evidence has been filed.

 The motion will be heard and the video will be shown in court. I will be covering every development. The hearing on admissibility, the witness testimony, and if this goes to trial, the jury’s verdict, because this is not just about one person hiding documents. This is about whether obstruction has consequences when the evidence is on camera. Let me know in the comments.

After seeing this evidence, do you think obstruction charges will lead to conviction? I read every comment. Thank you for watching. I will see you in the next analysis.