For those who’ve kept an eye on Donald Trump’s rhetoric over time, he has some unmistakable tells. When the former president tells stories, for example, about big, burly men who profess their love for him while crying, he’s lying. When he vows to release information in “two weeks,” he’s lying.

And similarly, when the Republican uses the word “exoneration,” he’s lying. Take his latest comments about his classified documents scandal, for example.

“I was exonerated from my case,” the GOP candidate said at a news conference in Milwaukee. “That was a big case, as you know. Down in Florida we had a, I don’t know the judge, but a brilliant judge. Totally brilliant judge. And I was exonerated. And fully exonerated.”

So, a few things.

First, the idea that U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon is a “totally brilliant judge” is impossible to take seriously. As a New York Times report summarized in June, in reference to the documents case, “Judge Cannon has exhibited hostility to prosecutors, handled pretrial motions slowly and indefinitely postponed the trial, declining to set a date for it to begin even though both the prosecution and the defense had told her they could be ready to start this summer.”

She also repeatedly gave observers reason to question her competence, lent credence to questions that legal experts consider absurd, refused to assign pretrial motions to a more experienced magistrate judge for reasons that were difficult to defend, and justified procedural delays by pointing to logjams that she had created.

“Brilliant” is not the first adjective that comes to mind.

Second, Cannon didn’t “exonerate” Trump. Rather, the controversial Trump-appointed judge threw out the charges based on misguided concerns about special counsel Jack Smith’s appointment. She did not, however, rule on the merits of the felony charges against the Republican candidate.

And third, let’s not lose sight of the amazing larger pattern.

In March 2018, Trump claimed that the House Intelligence Committee had completely exonerated him in the Russia scandal. That wasn’t true.

In June 2018, Trump said the Justice Department inspector general’s office had “totally” exonerated him in the Russia scandal. That was both wrong and kind of bonkers.

In February 2019, Trump claimed that the Senate Intelligence Committee had also exonerated him in the Russia scandal. That also wasn’t true.

In March 2019, Trump claimed the judge in a Paul Manafort trial exonerated him, too. That also wasn’t true.

In June 2021, Trump claimed he’d been “totally exonerated” by testimony from former White House counsel Don McGahn, which was largely the opposite of the truth.

In February 2023, Trump insisted that a special grand jury in Fulton County, Georgia, had rewarded him with “total exoneration.” That not only didn’t happen, that same special grand jury called for his criminal indictment. (He was later charged by a regular grand jury, which relied on the special grand jury’s findings.)

In June 2023, Trump published an item to his social media platform, declaring that he’d been “totally exonerated” in the classified documents scandal. That was also the opposite of the truth.

In June 2024, Trump claimed to have been “exonerated” for referencing the “very fine people” he saw protesting in Charlottesville. That wasn’t true, either.

In July 2024, Trump claimed “total exoneration” in the hush-money-to-a-porn-star case — the one in which he was ultimately found guilty of multiple felonies — which didn’t make any sense at all.

And in October 2024, Trump again claimed that he’d been “fully exonerated” in the classified documents scandal, which was still completely wrong.

There’s no great mystery as to the former president’s motivations. The GOP nominee has faced a series of controversies, each of which has caused political damage, and he’s been desperate to convince the public that he’s been cleared — in every instance — of any meaningful wrongdoing.

But either Trump doesn’t know what “exonerated” means or he has spent years trying to deceive the public about his culpability in a variety of serious scandals — or, more likely, both.

This post updates our related earlier coverage.