,
4 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
(1 of 3) This isn't incorrect, but also not complete—and therefore misleading. The issue wasn't assigning a value—in part because the value floor in the statute is so low almost any valuation would meet the statute. The main issue was intent, which it isn't (now) for Trump...
(2 of 3) ...as his knowledge of the law is now easy to prove. But Ross also leaves out that Mueller mentioned other reasons not to prosecute, including the low chance of incarceration—something that never stops a prosecution of an obscure black person. So the valuation issue...
(3 of 3) ...in context, paled in comparison to the "concealment" analysis, which went to intent and which Mueller flubbed. But no one doubts oppo from hacked materials is worth more than $3000. And no one doubts what Trump is endorsing now is a crime *and* an impeachable offense.
(PS) The only time you'll *ever* hear a prosecutor say, "I might ignore this statute because it might be unconstitutional" is when a high-profile person is the defendant.
I refuse to conduct a different legal analysis for Trump than I would for a public defender's office client.
I refuse to conduct a different legal analysis for Trump than I would for a public defender's office client.
