Only lumps of paper are said to have remained when Donald Trump took action in a White House toilet.

It is not entirely clear what fell victim to his document destruction campaigns, but one thing is certain: the former president not only liked to tear up documents that employees later had to put back together.

He also flushed notes or letters down the toilet.

At least that's what the New York Times journalist Maggie Haberman reports.

Some observers are already calling the affair “Flushgate”.

The Washington Post previously revealed that Trump destroyed documents from his tenure and took large amounts with him to his Mar-a-Lago estate.

Meanwhile, the National Archives was able to pick up fifteen boxes of material in Florida - but only after the archivists had negotiated with Trump's lawyers for months.

Among the letters were letters that Trump had exchanged with North Korea's ruler Kim Jong-un - he once said they had written "love letters".

The letter that Barack Obama left for his successor when he took office in 2017 is said to be among the documents that Trump now had to hand over.

In the meantime, it has also become known that among the documents there were also those that were clearly marked as "classified", i.e. secret.

The mere destruction or withholding of non-classified documents violates the Presidential Records Act of 1978, which was passed in the wake of the Watergate scandal.

President Richard Nixon, prior to his resignation four years earlier, initially refused to release any information he had about the spying on the Democrats.

Since then, all documents held by a president in his official capacity are not his property, but that of the state.

Trump's shredding actions could therefore now have legal consequences.

The Central State Archives in Washington asked the Justice Department to investigate whether the former president committed a criminal offense.

Because it is now also about secret documents, according to experts, investigations could also be carried out against employees who packed the material and took it to Florida.

It must also be checked whether there was a possible betrayal of secrets.

Trump himself could, however, refer to his office.

Former federal prosecutor Brandon Van Grack told the Washington Post that the rules governing the handling of classified documents sanction actions that are "unauthorized" - but the former president can argue that he authorized himself and his staff .

Trump has journalist Maggie Haberman to thank for the fact that the case has since taken on a “descriptive new dimension”, as the news site “Axios” put it.

She wanted to give a preview of her new book, which will be out in October, in a tweet this week.

Accordingly, Trump is said to have used the toilet in the White House to get rid of documents – these were regularly clogged because the head of the house at the time wanted to flush so much paper down.

In doing so, he had made things particularly difficult for the employees.

"I've heard that staff in the White House Residential Wing regularly found a clogged toilet," Haberman told CNN.

The plumber who was summoned then removed large lumps of paper – these were not accidents, but regular incidents.

The content of the documents is unknown - it could also be Trump's notes.

But they, too, could be affected by a president's duty to retain material.

According to experts, it is unusual for a president not only to destroy and take away extensive documents, but also for the National Archives to have to negotiate with his lawyers for months to get to the pits.

To this extent it should not have existed before.

In the House of Representatives, the Democrats meanwhile announced an investigation into the events.

Trump's environment told the Washington Post that there were no "dark motives" behind the shredder actions.

Spokesman Taylor Budowich said the whole story was "fake news" being spread for political reasons.

Haberman has also been criticized.

Colleagues asked her on Twitter why she waited so long before making the incident public, which, after all, is against the law.

"I don't know who needs to hear this, but when you become aware that someone has committed a crime, it's important to call the FBI, not save it for your next book," wrote CNN commentator Asha Rangappa .

And journalist David Perry scolded: "Reporters who withhold news for later should be fired."