Post #15642 by g0177325 on the US Policy board

Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy ❤

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (31)

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

No. of Recommendations: 2

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.

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

Print the post

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (31)

Prev | Next

Announcements

US Policy FAQ

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

A community forum supporting civilized, and highly helpful, self-educating investors that come together for Shrewdness and merry spirits. These message boards closely follow the look and feel of the old message boards at boards.fool.com prior to the boards redirected to discussion.fool.com. Shrewd'm is not affiliated with the comprehensive and excellent investment website, The Motley Fool (TMF), in any way. The Shrewd commmunity here has owed, and continues to owe, gratitude to The Motley Fool for nurturing a culture of jovial irreverence towards Wall St, and that tradition will continue here.