There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

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

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.

captainlezbian ,

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

Hadriscus ,

So did he just think

well…

Hadriscus ,

Nul n’est censé ignorer la loi

Makeitstop ,

Wait, I remember this one…

https://i.imgflip.com/2zk8s.jpg

foiledAgain ,

Classic Chip Trump

Twinklebreeze ,

From the before times. 🥲

GraniteM ,

“You see Dave… I did know I couldn’t do that! Eheheheheheheh!!”

_dev_null ,
@_dev_null@lemmy.zxcvn.xyz avatar

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.

angelsomething ,

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

ares35 ,
@ares35@kbin.social avatar

"the 'really smart', 'very stable genius' is too fucking stupid to have committed a crime."
--defense team, tomorrow.

be_excellent_to_each_other ,
@be_excellent_to_each_other@kbin.social avatar

I immediately thought of this. 😁

https://youtu.be/Td67kYY9mdQ

DeadNinja ,
@DeadNinja@lemmy.world avatar

“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 ,

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

AbidanYre , (edited )

Sign, sign

Everywhere a sign

Blockin’ out the scenery

Breakin’ my mind

Do this, don’t do that

Can’t you read the sign?

nxdefiant ,

For all the non-olds that need context:

youtu.be/oeT5otk2R1g

Hello_there ,

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

dangblingus ,

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

Ranvier , (edited )

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:

nbcnews.com/…/mueller-report-no-evidence-trump-kn…

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 ,

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.

originalucifer ,
@originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com avatar

agreed. his name should go down in history as 'Failure'

Earthwormjim91 ,

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 ,

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

blazera ,
@blazera@kbin.social avatar

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

Ranvier , (edited )

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 ,
@blazera@kbin.social avatar

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?

originalucifer ,
@originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com avatar

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.

WashedOver ,
@WashedOver@lemmy.ca avatar

It’s not like this is his first dealings with election recounts. He was involved with shutting down Jill Stein’s attempts at recounts for the 2016 election.

In November 2016, a group of computer scientists and election lawyers including J. Alex Halderman and John Bonifaz (founder of the National Voting Rights Institute) expressed concerns about the integrity of the presidential election results. They wanted a full audit or recount of the presidential election votes in three states key to Donald Trump’s electoral college win—Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania—but needed a candidate on the presidential ballot to file the petition to state authorities. After unsuccessfully lobbying Hillary Clinton and her team, the group approached Stein and she agreed to spearhead the recount effort.[74]

A crowdfunding campaign launched on November 24, 2016, to support the costs of the recount, raised more than $2.5 million in under 24 hours,[75] and $6.7 million in nearly a week.[76] On November 25, 2016, with 90 minutes remaining on the deadline to petition for a recount to Wisconsin’s electoral body, Stein filed for a recount of its presidential election results. She signaled she intended to file for similar recounts in the subsequent days in Michigan and Pennsylvania.[77]

President-elect Donald Trump issued a statement denouncing the recount request saying, “The people have spoken and the election is over.” Trump further commented that the recount “is a scam by the Green Party for an election that has already been conceded.”[78]

Kronusdark ,
@Kronusdark@lemmy.world avatar

I’ve seen judges go off the handle for less stupidity.

LEDZeppelin ,

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

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •