Trump claims he didn’t have ‘fair notice’ that Georgia actions could be illegal - eviltoast

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.

  • Ranvier@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      44
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      10 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        10 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.

    • thefartographer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      10 months ago

      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

      • Ranvier@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        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.

        • blazera@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          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?