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.

SaltySalamander ,
@SaltySalamander@kbin.social avatar

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

orbitz ,

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.

lolcatnip ,

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.

III ,

Can’t wait for SCOTUS to make affluenza a valid legal defense. \s

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.

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!!”

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.

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

dhork ,

“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”…

Nougat ,

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.

Granite ,

I’m stealing this.

What? No one warned me that stealing was illegal!

paddirn ,

…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 ,
@AlwaysNowNeverNotMe@kbin.social avatar

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

thefartographer ,

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.

KnightontheSun ,

Mein Kovfefe?

thefartographer ,

Shit, you copyright that title right the fuck now.

Hadriscus ,

😂 😂 😂 😂 😂

prowess2956 ,

The least realistic part of this, sadly, is the idea that he can write for himself.

thefartographer ,

“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…”

ikidd ,
@ikidd@lemmy.world avatar

He could just get Epsteined when he’s in there. That would be unfortunate and completely unforeseen.

Hadriscus ,

I’d be surprised he is a liability to anyone in power but himself…

LEDZeppelin ,

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

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.

utopianfiat ,

Say it with me friends

Ignorance of the law is no excuse

AbidanYre ,

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

HikingVet ,

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

Dkarma ,

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

HikingVet ,

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 ,
@mo_ztt@lemmy.world avatar

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 ,

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 ,
@mo_ztt@lemmy.world avatar

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 ,

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

superduperenigma ,

Ignorance of the law is no excuse

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

SuperTulle ,

And hasn’t been since before the Roman empire, possibly longer.

Ignorantia juris non excusat

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