The former president files several fresh motions to toss out Fulton County election interference charges

Attorneys for Donald Trump claim that the former president didn’t have “fair notice” that his attempts to reverse his Georgia loss in the 2020 presidential election could result in criminal charges against him.

A flurry of filings in Fulton County Superior Court on Monday argue that the sprawling election interference case against Mr Trump “consists entirely of core political speech at the zenith of First Amendment protections”.

Attorneys for the former president want the case dismissed on grounds that he has “presidential immunity” from actions while in office, that he was already acquitted for similar allegations in his second impeachment trial, and that he was never told that what he was doing in the state – where he is charged as part of an alleged racketeering scheme to unlawfully subvert the state’s election results – could be prosecuted.

  • @utopianfiat
    link
    English
    3071 year ago

    Say it with me friends

    Ignorance of the law is no excuse

    • @AbidanYre
      link
      English
      841 year ago

      It worked for Jr. Apparently he was too stupid to collude with Russia, despite his best efforts.

        • @Dkarma
          link
          351 year ago

          The next trump legal argument: “yer honor I’m literally too dumb to commit crimes”

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            01 year ago

            I wonder if being found incompetent to stand trail would have any effect on what he did as president. Like would they just invalidate anything he signed?

    • mo_ztt ✅
      link
      English
      671 year ago

      Not only that, but he was definitely informed. White House counsel and other informed professionals were privy to a bunch of meetings where people were talking about these ideas, and they shared their opinions and sometimes got in shouting matches or resigned.

      I think Trump’s brain genuinely cannot process the concepts of “right” and “wrong” as distinct from whatever he feels like doing, and so you could say: Yes, people whose job it is to be informed experts told him very clearly that these things were illegal, but his brain is so rotten and single-minded that he couldn’t absorb that their advice might be objectively true, any more than a dog can understand a “keep off the grass” sign.

      Fortunately I think the chance of his lawyers advancing that as a defense is pretty remote.

      • @givesomefucks
        link
        English
        36
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It boils down to:

        No one stopped me in the moment so that means I’m allowed

        Like if you tell a child not to touch a hot stove, they touch it, then get mad you didn’t stop them.

        You always got to think what would a toddler do if you want to understand trump.

        • mo_ztt ✅
          link
          English
          221 year ago

          Yeah. It’s just not a logical frame of mind. If you tried to stop me in the moment, you’re the enemy and you must be destroyed, how dare you, I feel angry, fuck you. If I did it and later it turned out it was wrong, you should have stopped me, how dare you, it’s not my fault, it’s your fault, I feel angry, fuck you.

          • @PwnTra1n
            link
            English
            10
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            You just laid out all his platforms. I’m angry and fuck you are maga staples

    • SuperDuper
      link
      151 year ago

      Ignorance of the law is no excuse

      Unless you’re a cop illegally detaining someone for breaking a non-existent law