He may try to argue he took them while he was president, and therefore, no charges can be filed. Actions and motives while the president can not be looked at either.
I am sure Jack Smith can argue all the other crimes of keeping, obstructing, and distributing the documents to those with out security clerence is still a crime but it’s if the question of his legitimacy if the reason. I think the SCTUS will agree with Cannon over the actual law for some BS reasons the founding fathers are believed to have said along time ago.
For what it’s worth, it’s really hard to read this post (which you seem to have put some actual effort into) because you’re writing it with odd abbreviations and slang. I know you’re trying to be edgy or something but when you have something worthwhile to say, it’s best to communicate it in a way that the majority of people who run across it can understand, rather than wrap it in what effectively amounts to lingo and jargon.
It would force them to drop evidence about his state of mind when he took the documents. They would essentially be unable to argue anything at all about how they ended up there. The case would then ONLY be about him not returning them later on request, with no other context available for the ruling
He was no longer president. How is this an official act?
He may try to argue he took them while he was president, and therefore, no charges can be filed. Actions and motives while the president can not be looked at either.
In the immunity ruling, “Just Us” CT added a note he thought Jack Smiths appointment was illegitimate. This means that if she tosses the entire case, it will inevitably get to the SCOTUS where there is at least 1 friendly judge that would let him off. Judging by the 6-3 ruling, I wouldn’t be surprised if there were actually 6 judges.
I am sure Jack Smith can argue all the other crimes of keeping, obstructing, and distributing the documents to those with out security clerence is still a crime but it’s if the question of his legitimacy if the reason. I think the SCTUS will agree with Cannon over the actual law for some BS reasons the founding fathers are believed to have said along time ago.
For what it’s worth, it’s really hard to read this post (which you seem to have put some actual effort into) because you’re writing it with odd abbreviations and slang. I know you’re trying to be edgy or something but when you have something worthwhile to say, it’s best to communicate it in a way that the majority of people who run across it can understand, rather than wrap it in what effectively amounts to lingo and jargon.
It would force them to drop evidence about his state of mind when he took the documents. They would essentially be unable to argue anything at all about how they ended up there. The case would then ONLY be about him not returning them later on request, with no other context available for the ruling
Don’t they have proof of him having them moved after the fact to try and hide he had them?