Intent is proven by subjective knowledge of what he knew about the law, and his internal staff have already testified he knew of the existing laws. There’s also recent recodings of him saying so and worrying about a crime being committed. He knew, and illustrated such, it’s not a hearsay case if he’s on tape, and others acted at his direction, which again, is already on record.
The ruling explicitly states that those things on the record are not admissible if they were not through some public form of communication. So his phone call to the Georgia governor would be inadmissible even though it is currently public knowledge since it was originally a private call he claims was official business.
Yeah, but that law requires intent and all that evidence you mentioned can be thrown out.
Intent is proven by subjective knowledge of what he knew about the law, and his internal staff have already testified he knew of the existing laws. There’s also recent recodings of him saying so and worrying about a crime being committed. He knew, and illustrated such, it’s not a hearsay case if he’s on tape, and others acted at his direction, which again, is already on record.
The ruling explicitly states that those things on the record are not admissible if they were not through some public form of communication. So his phone call to the Georgia governor would be inadmissible even though it is currently public knowledge since it was originally a private call he claims was official business.
His public tweets would be admissible.
It does not state that AT ALL. I’ve read it twice. Please feel free to link me to my error.