IANAL, but my reading of this defense is different than what I’m seeing in most of the comments here.
He isn’t simply pleading insanity. The defense is trying to avoid a guilty verdict on some particular charges with large prison sentences. The defense is claiming that he did not intend to interfere with official duties.
He’s facing two charges: attempted kidnapping of a U.S. official (which requires the intent to interfere with official duties) and assault on an immediate family member of a U.S. official (which also requires the intent to interfere with or retaliate against the official over their duties). The kidnapping charge carries a 20-year prison sentence and the assault has a 30-year term.
They’re basically saying, “yes my client committed assault and kidnapping, but not for the reason required to be found guilty of those particular charges. Therefore, he is not guilty.
It doesn’t sound like their argument holds up because, even though his reasons are crazy, they still show he intended to interfere with official duties. But this is not a “put me in an insane asylum” attempt. It’s a not-guilty (of those particular charges) attempt.
Hypothetical: A carjacker takes a car while the owners are still in it. The owners happen to be the Pelosis. That would not be chargeable as "kidnapping of a US official," with that intent to interfere with official duties; the carjacker was not targeting the Pelosis because of their relationship to government.
In this case, the Pelosis were clearly the targets because of Nancy Pelosi's status as an elected official, and her purported involvment in some corruption in government.
IANAL, but my reading of this defense is different than what I’m seeing in most of the comments here.
He isn’t simply pleading insanity. The defense is trying to avoid a guilty verdict on some particular charges with large prison sentences. The defense is claiming that he did not intend to interfere with official duties.
They’re basically saying, “yes my client committed assault and kidnapping, but not for the reason required to be found guilty of those particular charges. Therefore, he is not guilty.
It doesn’t sound like their argument holds up because, even though his reasons are crazy, they still show he intended to interfere with official duties. But this is not a “put me in an insane asylum” attempt. It’s a not-guilty (of those particular charges) attempt.
Hypothetical: A carjacker takes a car while the owners are still in it. The owners happen to be the Pelosis. That would not be chargeable as "kidnapping of a US official," with that intent to interfere with official duties; the carjacker was not targeting the Pelosis because of their relationship to government.
In this case, the Pelosis were clearly the targets because of Nancy Pelosi's status as an elected official, and her purported involvment in some corruption in government.
Agreed. Good explanations.