678
submitted 5 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] utopianfiat@lemmy.world 304 points 5 months ago

Say it with me friends

Ignorance of the law is no excuse

[-] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 84 points 5 months ago

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

[-] HikingVet@lemmy.ca 54 points 5 months ago

Being too stupid to do it is different from I didn't know. Though both are bad.

[-] Dkarma@lemmy.world 34 points 5 months ago

The next trump legal argument: "yer honor I'm literally too dumb to commit crimes"

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] mo_ztt@lemmy.world 67 points 5 months 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@lemmy.world 36 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months 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@lemmy.world 21 points 5 months 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] superduperenigma@lemmy.world 15 points 5 months ago

Ignorance of the law is no excuse

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Makeitstop@lemmy.world 150 points 5 months ago

Wait, I remember this one...

[-] Twinklebreeze@lemmy.world 22 points 5 months ago

From the before times. 🥲

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] dhork@lemmy.world 106 points 5 months ago

“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"....

[-] paddirn@lemmy.world 41 points 5 months ago

...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.

[-] AlwaysNowNeverNotMe@kbin.social 18 points 5 months ago

It's a roundabout way of acknowledging that it's considered uncouth to charge rich people with their crimes.

[-] thefartographer@lemm.ee 23 points 5 months ago

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.

[-] Nougat@kbin.social 18 points 5 months ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Rootiest@lemmy.world 93 points 5 months ago

Firstly: of course he knew it was illegal.

Secondly: ignorance of the law does not give you immunity from breaking it

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] SaltySalamander@kbin.social 80 points 5 months ago

Ignorance of the law does not absolve you of the consequences for breaking that law.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] profoundninja@sh.itjust.works 63 points 5 months ago

Human so morally bankrupt needs minimum notice period before committing crimes otherwise it's unfair to judge him on said crimes.

Right...

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 59 points 5 months ago

Ignorance of the law has never been received in court as a viable defence.

[-] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 27 points 5 months ago

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.

[-] Ranvier@sopuli.xyz 21 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

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:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/mueller-report-no-evidence-trump-knew-about-trump-tower-meeting-n995816

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.

[-] krashmo@lemmy.world 38 points 5 months ago

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.

[-] Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world 20 points 5 months ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] withnail@infosec.pub 59 points 5 months ago

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!

[-] superduperenigma@lemmy.world 60 points 5 months ago

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.

[-] Bigoldmustard@lemmy.zip 16 points 5 months ago

This is a staggering work of genius. Truly, easily the best trump I’ve read. Well done.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] _dev_null@lemmy.zxcvn.xyz 43 points 5 months ago

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.

[-] dQw4w9WgXcQ@lemm.ee 41 points 5 months ago

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?

[-] pachrist@lemmy.world 15 points 5 months ago

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.

[-] DeadNinja@lemmy.world 40 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

"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 ????"

[-] Moobythegoldensock@lemm.ee 23 points 5 months ago

“I didn’t see any sign on the door that said ‘breaking and entering not allowed,’ so how I was I to know?”

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Hello_there@kbin.social 39 points 5 months ago

Next time that I'm caught speeding, I'll just claim that I didn't know that speeding was illegal. That should work.

[-] Furbag@lemmy.world 32 points 5 months ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 30 points 5 months ago

Trump: You never told me you'd prosecute me for election interference!

Georgia: You never asked!

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 30 points 5 months ago

So did he just think that his 44 predecessors never thought to try?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] nbafantest@lemmy.world 28 points 5 months ago

I'm pretty certain we know his lawyers told him it was illegal

[-] poprocks@lemmy.world 16 points 5 months ago

I'm pretty sure a 5 yr old could have told him it's illegal.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] st3ph3n@midwest.social 27 points 5 months ago

We've been told pretty much forever that ignorance of the law is no defense, so shut the fuck up, Donny.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] 108@lemmy.world 27 points 5 months ago

with all this lack of knowledge it sounds like he shouldn't be in office.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] BeautifulMind@lemmy.world 25 points 5 months ago

"Can't tell if obviously-criminal things are illegal", and "still thinks he should be president" 🤡

[-] medicsofanarchy@lemmy.world 24 points 5 months ago

Wait a minute, can this be considered a confession? "Yes, I did it, BUT..." ?

[-] Uglyhead@lemmy.world 16 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Narcs Prayer (again):

That didn't happen.

And if it did, it wasn't that bad.

And if it was, that's not a big deal.

And if it is, that's not my fault. <——

And if it was, I didn't mean it.

And if I did, you deserved it.

__

These are more of phases or stages of malignant NPD thinking. They can circle and circle and mix around again and again kind of like the ‘5 Stages of Grief’ can do.

[-] LEDZeppelin@lemmy.world 24 points 5 months ago

He is also claiming presidential immunity. That’s classic narcissistic prayer.

[-] PedroMaldonado@lemmy.world 21 points 5 months ago

Goddammit. The environments going to shit, 3 people own everything and we're STILL DEALING WITH THIS ASSHOLE! TRUMP IS A BOIL ON US ALL.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] unreasonabro@lemmy.world 19 points 5 months ago

Ignorance of the law has always been my excuse, he says from jail

[-] Got_Bent@lemmy.world 17 points 5 months ago

I cannot count the number of times I've seen the phrase, "Ignorance of the law is not a defense."

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 16 points 5 months ago

The "Chappelle's White Friend" defense.

[-] angelsomething@lemmy.one 15 points 5 months ago

lol. He’s now trying the “officer, I didn’t know I couldn’t do that” defence.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 08 Jan 2024
678 points (95.8% liked)

News

21693 readers
4369 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS