Subject: Re: The Cannon Jury Instructions
So, the Presidential Records Act dispute is over whether the bolded phrase - "unauthorized possession" - can be proven by the prosecution. But here's the thing - there's an exactly parallel subsection (18 USC 793(d)) that has the exact same language that applies to anyone "lawfully having possession...." of all that stuff as well. The defense is proceeding on a theory that if they can prove that Trump had lawful possession of the documents under their PRA case that section (e) doesn't apply (which is probably correct). Presumably, they also have an argument lined up that the PRA would mean that section (d) (as a lesser included offense) also doesn't apply (which I don't see).

Hmm. I'm not much liking the sound of this. It seems that the only hope of a conviction is going to be if Cannon gets replaced.