You're right, he's not. Did they teach you how to look up statutes at Harvard Law? He's not being investigated for 18 U.S.C. 1924. He's being investigated for 18 U.S.C. 2071, 793(e), and 1519 https://t.co/dvhSh0ODmt— Asha Rangappa (@AshaRangappa_) August 31, 2022
It's hard to believe that Mr. Shapiro went to law school. He obviously doesn't know much about criminal law.— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) August 31, 2022
Among other things, the statute and conduct at issue here are different than the Clinton case. And he ignores the evidence of obstruction set forth in the filing. https://t.co/oPFgVkAjTY
...that really doesn’t matter. No slight against the responses, but Shapiro isn’t on Trump’s legal team and what he pronounces is read by tens of people (I didn’t even know he’d supposedly gone to law school). All that really matters is what happens in court.
The screenshot says that "clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information" and "evidence of obstruction" are reasons to prosecute. No need for "treason" or "espionage." https://t.co/289qoVq81Q— Eric Columbus (@EricColumbus) August 31, 2022
Same thing Trump did with elections. He tried; he tried too hard. The courts rejected him; the government didn’t yield. The courts will decide Trump’s criminal responsibility; not Dan Bongino.
This position didn’t come out of nowhere. Trump has been attacking the FBI and DOJ for years precisely for this reason—so when compelling evidence of his criminal activity was made public, his base wouldn’t trust law enforcement. https://t.co/6jF7WVhIs8— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) August 31, 2022
Needless to say, this is not what lawyers call a “legal defense.” And this is why she’s talking:
Trump attorney Alina Habba is upset that the DOJ and FBI are looking into "mundane" crimes like "espionage" at Mar-a-Lago.— David Edwards (@DavidEdwards) August 31, 2022
"They found these three mundane statutes: espionage and the two others." pic.twitter.com/peZFuGes6A