Embed Notice

HTML Code

<blockquote style="position: relative; padding-left: 55px;"><section><a href="https://law.builders/users/IntlLawGnome/statuses/109699200699497306">JB Emmons (intllawgnome@law.builders)'s status on Monday, 16-Jan-2023 23:28:41 JST</a><a href="https://law.builders/@IntlLawGnome" title="intllawgnome@law.builders"><img src="https://gnusocial.jp/avatar/21758-48-20221219035625.webp" width="48" height="48" alt="JB Emmons" style="position: absolute; left: 0; top: 0;">JB Emmons</a><div><a href="https://gnusocial.jp/notice/2317947" rel="in-reply-to">in reply to</a><ul><li></ul></div></section><article><p>I'm also finding <a href="https://mastodon.social/@emptywheel">@emptywheel</a> 's analysis persuasive as usual, which leads to this conclusion: "Taking classified documents unknowingly is probably not a crime, especially for a President or Vice President. Refusing to give them back may well be. That’s the question before Jack Smith, as well as the obstruction question. That’s probably the question before Robert Hur."</p><p>Marcy's thinking as to why this is so is worth your time:<br><a href="https://www.emptywheel.net/2023/01/15/why-trumps-lawyer-evan-corcoran-thinks-joe-biden-didnt-violate-18-usc-1924/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.emptywheel.net/2023/01/15/why-trumps-lawyer-evan-corcoran-thinks-joe-biden-didnt-violate-18-usc-1924/</a></p></article><footer><a rel="bookmark" href="https://gnusocial.jp/conversation/1050827#notice-2317948">In conversation</a><time datetime="2023-01-16T23:28:41+09:00" title="Monday, 16-Jan-2023 23:28:41 JST">Monday, 16-Jan-2023 23:28:41 JST</time> <span>from <span><a href="https://law.builders/@IntlLawGnome/109699200699497306" rel="external" title="Sent from law.builders via ActivityPub">law.builders</a></span></span><a href="https://law.builders/@IntlLawGnome/109699200699497306">permalink</a><h4>Attachments</h4><ol><li><article><header><div>Domain not in remote thumbnail source whitelist: www.emptywheel.net</div><h5><a href="https://www.emptywheel.net/2023/01/15/why-trumps-lawyer-evan-corcoran-thinks-joe-biden-didnt-violate-18-usc-1924/">Why Trump's Lawyer, Evan Corcoran, Says Joe Biden Couldn't Violate 18 USC 1924 - emptywheel</a></h5><div> from <span>@emptywheel</span></div></header><div>Trump's lawyer, Evan Corcoran, argued last May that 18 USC 1924 -- which many Twitter experts claim is at issue with Biden's classified documents -- cannot apply to the President. If his analysis is correct, it also cannot apply to the Vice President.</div><footer></footer></article></li></ol></footer></blockquote>

Corresponding Notice

Embed this notice
JB Emmons (intllawgnome@law.builders)'s status on Monday, 16-Jan-2023 23:28:41 JSTJB Emmons
in reply to
- emptywheel
I'm also finding @emptywheel 's analysis persuasive as usual, which leads to this conclusion: "Taking classified documents unknowingly is probably not a crime, especially for a President or Vice President. Refusing to give them back may well be. That’s the question before Jack Smith, as well as the obstruction question. That’s probably the question before Robert Hur."
Marcy's thinking as to why this is so is worth your time:
https://www.emptywheel.net/2023/01/15/why-trumps-lawyer-evan-corcoran-thinks-joe-biden-didnt-violate-18-usc-1924/
In conversationMonday, 16-Jan-2023 23:28:41 JST from law.builderspermalink
Attachments
1. Domain not in remote thumbnail source whitelist: www.emptywheel.net
  Why Trump's Lawyer, Evan Corcoran, Says Joe Biden Couldn't Violate 18 USC 1924 - emptywheel
  from @emptywheel
  Trump's lawyer, Evan Corcoran, argued last May that 18 USC 1924 -- which many Twitter experts claim is at issue with Biden's classified documents -- cannot apply to the President. If his analysis is correct, it also cannot apply to the Vice President.

Public

Embed Notice

HTML Code

Corresponding Notice