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.
Say it with me friends
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
It worked for Jr. Apparently he was too stupid to collude with Russia, despite his best efforts.
Being too stupid to do it is different from I didn’t know. Though both are bad.
The next trump legal argument: “yer honor I’m literally too dumb to commit crimes”
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?
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.
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.
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.
You just laid out all his platforms. I’m angry and fuck you are maga staples
Ignorance of the law is no excuse
Unless you’re a cop illegally detaining someone for breaking a non-existent law
And hasn’t been since before the Roman empire, possibly longer.
Ignorantia juris non excusat
Wait, I remember this one…
From the before times. 🥲
“You see Dave… I did know I couldn’t do that! Eheheheheheheh!!”
Classic Chip Trump
“Our country has a longstanding tradition of forceful political advocacy regarding widespread allegations of fraud and irregularities in a long list of presidential elections throughout our history, therefore, President Trump lacked fair notice that his advocacy in the instance of the 2020 presidential election could be criminalized,” according to his attorneys.
Calling what he did “political advocacy” is a bit like calling what Jeffrey Dahmer did an “alternative diet”…
…lacked fair notice that his advocacy in the instance of the 2020 presidential election could be criminalized
They’re trying to insinuate that it was only just made illegal after the fact, like he didn’t know that trying to commit election fraud was already a crime.
It’s a roundabout way of acknowledging that it’s considered uncouth to charge rich people with their crimes.
I swear they’re about to take the Hitler defense. Just say, “yeah! We did it! We tried to overthrow the government! But only because we looooooove this country so much… And sure, sure, y’all say we’re racist, but it’s clear you don’t understand just how racist we are. We are waaaaaay more racist than you can even conceive.”
Then his idiot followers will talk about how he speaks the truth and says what’s on his mind and he’ll get locked up for, like, a year, during which time he’ll pen his horrible instruction manual on how to destroy our country.
Mein Kovfefe?
Shit, you copyright that title right the fuck now.
😂 😂 😂 😂 😂
The least realistic part of this, sadly, is the idea that he can write for himself.
“Trump needs more crayons and toilet paper for his book!”
“Wow! He must have written 100 pages by now!”
“No… He just won’t stop eating them…”
He could just get Epsteined when he’s in there. That would be unfortunate and completely unforeseen.
I’d be surprised he is a liability to anyone in power but himself…
deleted by creator
I’m pretty sure everyone in the federal government has had plenty of notice, since the US Constitution grants States the sole authority to operate elections.
I’m stealing this.
What? No one warned me that stealing was illegal!
Firstly: of course he knew it was illegal.
Secondly: ignorance of the law does not give you immunity from breaking it
Firstly: of course he knew it was illegal.
Secondly: ignorance of the law does not give you immunity
Third: he assumed no one was taping him committing said crime, if they had not done that he would have simply denied it and his cult would have accepted that lie, as always
Obviously you’re right. That said, in the universe of Trump’s fiction, it tracks (kind of). If the machines were rigged and if the election was stolen, then several things logically follow:
-
Trump’s actions to retain power were not only justified, but also imperative, and very much within the scope of his duties as president, since he’s the executive branch; while DOJ might normally handle the day to day, a stolen election is a big deal, and it makes sense he would step in. And therefore he would be immune to prosecution for any “law breaking.”
-
If you’re a superhero cop - not an actual, fat ass fascist bastard cop we have irl, but the kind of cop TV says is what cops are like, you don’t have time for subpoenas and warrants – you break down the doors and you grab the evidence. Maybe you’re not even sure if there’s a crime, but you can’t risk it – and if you’re president, you can argue there’s room for “better to ask for forgiveness than permission” in that context.
-
If you’re not sure whether there’s been a crime but there’s a massive time pressure and extremely high stakes (as would be the case if the election was actually stolen), you would need to act as if there was a crime, since the consequences if there isn’t pale in comparison to the consequences if there is. So: if you are the head of the executive branch, and you are concerned that there’s a crime of that magnitude, you could easily make the case that you are duty bound to investigate.
-
So, the situation is this: if you investigate, and there’s a crime, you’ve saved the world; if you investigate and there is no crime, then you will go to jail for it. That’s a bit unfair – so, a warning that, if you investigate this and there’s no crime, then you’re going to jail, might’ve been called for.
So – if Trump was able to produce even a single piece of evidence to support his claims, the fiction he’s established on top of them is arguable, and, if you start to look at his cases through that lens, his absurd motions and arguments kind of make sense.
if the election was stolen … Trump’s actions to retain power were not only justified, but also imperative, and very much within the scope of his duties as president
Nope this doesn’t follow. It would just mean that both actions would be equally illegal. There is no provision in law for one to break the law in order to remedy breaking the law.
you can argue there’s room for “better to ask for forgiveness than permission” in that context.
This actually basically never applies in real life. In real life we let the criminal off rather than incentivize breaking the law by declaring evidence so gained as fruits of a poisonous tree.
If you’re not sure whether there’s been a crime but there’s a massive time pressure and extremely high stakes (as would be the case if the election was actually stolen), you would need to act as if there was a crime
In the almost mythical stereotypical ticking time bomb scenario where morality can only be served by breaking the law the right thing after the bomb is diffused is to attempt to punish both cop and criminal. The cop in that scenario isn’t above the law their actions are a willing sacrifice of their own well being in service of a higher good.
if you investigate, and there’s a crime, you’ve saved the world; if you investigate and there is no crime, then you will go to jail for it. That’s a bit unfair – so, a warning that, if you investigate this and there’s no crime, then you’re going to jail, might’ve been called for.
He did investigate. There were 60 some cases including in GA. There was a recount and so forth. None of this was a crime.
The crime was threatening the SOS and trying to get the SOS or other officials to “fix” the election after he lost. The crime was getting fake electors to swear on lawful papework that they were lawfully chosen electors.
None of this is even slightly legit. It is as obviously illegal as dealing heroin or hiring a contract killer. Nobody is required to discern the nature of your criminal conspiracy and warn you that you are plotting to commit a crime.
To #1, the legal avenue is to bring this to the courts.
He did that and failed the effort. Spectacularly. Multiple times.
The courts determined that he lost, and that any further arguments were frivolous.
It should also be noted he was saying the election was stolen before the polls ever opened, so, there’s that.
I think though that (using your argument: given the severity/importance of the claim if true) there’s even more necessity that you produce even circumstantial evidence to justify suspicion of a crime before making the accusation.
Similar to how cops are supposed to show probable cause before detaining or pulling you over, etc.
Given that he couldn’t even come close to producing any kind of evidence, even flimsy evidence, and there’s verifiable proof of him pressing election officials and others to illegally alter or create votes to back up his claim, I think it’s clear that he knew very well there was no truth to his claims.
This is religion’s fault. Fuckin magical thinking’s all the average american is capable of. The bill for the 80s has come due
-
Ignorance of the law does not absolve you of the consequences for breaking that law.
Didn’t it work for Trump Jr and the Russian meeting? Like they couldn’t prove that Jr knew the meeting was illegal behind the flimsy excuse of adoptions. Not that I don’t agree, just some people seem to get away with it and this family seems to have unlimited avoid jail cards when either the avalanche of legal filings (according to contractors he’s stiffed) or whining doesn’t work.
There are specific laws where having certain knowledge is required to break them, but as far as I know, that knowledge never includes the law itself.
Can’t wait for SCOTUS to make affluenza a valid legal defense. \s
Human so morally bankrupt needs minimum notice period before committing crimes otherwise it’s unfair to judge him on said crimes.
Right…
I wasn’t told killing someone was a bad thing before I did it your honor…
You didn’t tell me ahead that I wasn’t supposed to murder anybody, so this one’s free…
Ignorance of the law has never been received in court as a viable defence.
unless youre a police officer.
the only people allowed to be completely ignorant of the law, and get away with it, are police officers.
sure, they are wrong, but whatareyougunnadoaboutit. courts have ruled “police officers do not need to know the law to enforce it” which means they can literally do whatever they want, and you have no choice until later.
awesome.
In general no. Some laws have this written as a specific out though right into them. Not aware if Georgia’s laws have anything like this, but Trump Jr not being charged for criminal conduct in his meetings with Russian agents is a pretty famous example:
Mueller declined charging him because “On the facts here, the government would unlikely be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the June 9 meeting participants had general knowledge that their conduct was unlawful. The investigation has not developed evidence that the participants in the meeting were familiar with the foreign-contribution ban or the application of federal law to the relevant factual context.”
By no means am I saying this should be a valid defense, I don’t think it should. As our laws are written though, sometimes being too dumb to know it’s illegal might be a defense, at least for some of them.
Edit: this may not be the case, also see replies below.
Mueller dropped the biggest ball in American history with that whole report. He tried his best to deflect responsibility to deal with the situation to Congress and in so doing gave Republicans everything they needed to spin it all as inconsequential. What a fucking coward.
Mueller did exactly what he was legally allowed to do. A DOJ special counsel is not the same thing as an Independent Counsel.
He could not bring any charges himself, only report to the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General. And he was also legally bound to follow all DOJ policy, which under AG Barr was that the DOJ could not charge a sitting President or even recommend.
agreed. his name should go down in history as ‘Failure’
Poor but uneducated = burden on society, better sterilize these folks
Rich but dumb = this person should have been taught better, shame on you all! Give them another chance and another company to be CEO of
Foreign contributions laws do not have anything written about ignorance of the law granting immunity. https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/CFR-2017-title11-vol1/CFR-2017-title11-vol1-sec110-20
Interesting. IANAL, you could be right. I’m only taking the reporting of why Mueller didn’t indict trump Jr at face value. Petty egregious he wasn’t indicted if that’s the case. It is the excuse the Justice department lawyers used. Like it’s right there in the report.
Edit: Copy pasted out the definition of “knowingly” from the law in question
(4) Knowingly means that a person must: (i) Have actual knowledge that the source of the funds solicited, accepted or received is a foreign national; (ii) Be aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that there is a substantial probability that the source of the funds solicited, accepted or received is a foreign national; or (iii) Be aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to inquire whether the source of the funds solicited, accepted or received is a foreign national, but the person failed to conduct a reasonable inquiry.
Doesn’t seem like this refers to knowing the law exists, I wonder what Mueller was on about in his report, or if there’s some other court precedent not directly in the law or something. Maybe Mueller meant he didn’t have knowledge that information was an “in kind” contribution equivalent to funds, and therefore did not accept funds knowingly? Seems like a stretch though I don’t know, would still be ignorance of the law in the end. Need an actual campaign finance lawyer, haha.
Also consider who they are saying is ignorant of campaign law, its Trumps campaign team, not just Jr but also Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner were at that meeting. I mean if the political campaign of a frontrunner presidential candidate isnt expected to know campaign law, who the hell is?
What’s next? Sovereign citizen bullshit?
Judge, I’m a natural born… what was it… citizen. You cannot charge me for anything. It’s true! Just look at the charters! Those, uhm, charters. I was merely traveling through Georgia. You have to let me go right now. Believe me, I know my rights!
Maritime law, folks. They don’t want you to know about the - you know we have fantastic maritime laws in this country. Some of the best, maybe better than anyone else. We used to have them at least, but the radical leftists won’t tell you about that. When I walk into the courtroom - and these are corrupt places, let me tell you. A lot of people are talking about how unfairly people are treated here, especially if you’re the president. And when you’re the president you know a thing or two about courtrooms, folks. I start talking about the courts and the law and the maritime law and everyone listening - many of them lawyers, some of which have good genes, very good genes, folks, some of them are Jewish - I hear a lot lawyers are Jewish but I don’t know - when I talk about the courts they say “sir! Sir! How do you know so much about courts and law?” I don’t know, folks, but maybe it’s natural talent. But when you walk into the courtroom and you see the judges and the lawyers and the bailiff out to get you but you also see the tassels on the flag - they’re beautiful tassels, folks. One on each corner of the beautiful American flag. Golden, too. Everyone will tell you that I love gold, I have a lot of things painted gold in Mar A Lago. But when you see the tassels you know it has to be maritime law, not the phony, corrupt laws they use in New York, or Georgia, or Colorado. It’s gotta be the maritime law. But there’s no sailors in the court so you know - we used to have fantastic sailors in this country, they’d sail huge distances on the oceans. Maybe hundreds of miles, very far. Very far folks. They were in the Navy but maybe on other boats, too. But when you don’t see them in the courtroom you know they there’s no maritime law. But when you see the beautiful gold tassels on the beautiful American flag you know there’s supposed to be maritime law happening, but it’s not happening, so you know it’s all corrupt. It needs to be thrown out. It means I’m exonerated and everyone knows it. A lot of people are saying it. Very smart people.
deleted by creator
I could see Trump say that while pretending to play the accordion.
Edit: Spelling
🎶Yoooou’re aaaa crook, captain hook…
Did you write that or have an ai do it? Either way that was genius
Flawless !
Jack Smith spelled his name DONALD TRUMP and since it’s in all caps, it’s not really Donald Trump the person!
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
All the murderers on death row are like “that works?!”, as they rush to call a lawyer.
Narrator: It does not.
After getting caught in a bank robbery, stealing thousands of dollars and traumatizing bystanders, the robber can just say: “No one gave me a fair notice this was illegal”
Is that pretty much the level of this claim?
I’d be like entering Fast 5 into evidence.
See your honor? The good guys were the robbers! They also love America and occasionally fuck members of their family.
“Hey, I just tried to break into my school principal’s room on a weekend to change my exam grade - because, you know, bad grades don’t look good on me - BUT WHY IS THIS BEING MADE INTO SUCH A TOPIC ???”
“I didn’t see any sign on the door that said ‘breaking and entering not allowed,’ so how I was I to know?”
Sign, sign
Everywhere a sign
Blockin’ out the scenery
Breakin’ my mind
Do this, don’t do that
Can’t you read the sign?
For all the non-olds that need context:
Next time that I’m caught speeding, I’ll just claim that I didn’t know that speeding was illegal. That should work.
This defense doesn’t even work in the context of his specific case. He was told by staffers that what he was attempting to do was illegal and he made the phone call anyway. How much “fair notice” do you need to double check that you’re not committing a crime when told by people whose job it is to do all of the research for you ahead of time?
Ignorance of the law is not a defense for breaking it, and this should be as damning as a confession of guilt.
He knows all this. This is just more nonsense to drag it out. The court can’t just say “shut the fuck up Donny” and move forward else he’ll claim unfair treatment. So they have to accept the motions and take the time to carefully disqualify them. This is just a tactic to cast more doubt on the proceedings and make it take longer so he can complain about how they’re dragging it out to make him look bad because he’s innocent and they don’t have the evidence to convict.
So did he just think that his 44 predecessors never thought to try?
So did he just think
well…
Trump: You never told me you’d prosecute me for election interference!
Georgia: You never asked!
Georgia: you should have already known, it’s the law. Not some ordinary contract that you get to sign or decline
