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.
Firstly: of course he knew it was illegal.
Secondly: ignorance of the law does not give you immunity from breaking it
Third: he assumed no one was taping him committing said crime, if they had not done that he would have simply denied it and his cult would have accepted that lie, as always
Obviously you're right. That said, in the universe of Trump's fiction, it tracks (kind of). If the machines were rigged and if the election was stolen, then several things logically follow:
Trump's actions to retain power were not only justified, but also imperative, and very much within the scope of his duties as president, since he's the executive branch; while DOJ might normally handle the day to day, a stolen election is a big deal, and it makes sense he would step in. And therefore he would be immune to prosecution for any "law breaking."
If you're a superhero cop - not an actual, fat ass fascist bastard cop we have irl, but the kind of cop TV says is what cops are like, you don't have time for subpoenas and warrants -- you break down the doors and you grab the evidence. Maybe you're not even sure if there's a crime, but you can't risk it -- and if you're president, you can argue there's room for "better to ask for forgiveness than permission" in that context.
If you're not sure whether there's been a crime but there's a massive time pressure and extremely high stakes (as would be the case if the election was actually stolen), you would need to act as if there was a crime, since the consequences if there isn't pale in comparison to the consequences if there is. So: if you are the head of the executive branch, and you are concerned that there's a crime of that magnitude, you could easily make the case that you are duty bound to investigate.
So, the situation is this: if you investigate, and there's a crime, you've saved the world; if you investigate and there is no crime, then you will go to jail for it. That's a bit unfair -- so, a warning that, if you investigate this and there's no crime, then you're going to jail, might've been called for.
So -- if Trump was able to produce even a single piece of evidence to support his claims, the fiction he's established on top of them is arguable, and, if you start to look at his cases through that lens, his absurd motions and arguments kind of make sense.
To #1, the legal avenue is to bring this to the courts.
He did that and failed the effort. Spectacularly. Multiple times.
The courts determined that he lost, and that any further arguments were frivolous.
It should also be noted he was saying the election was stolen before the polls ever opened, so, there’s that.
Nope this doesn't follow. It would just mean that both actions would be equally illegal. There is no provision in law for one to break the law in order to remedy breaking the law.
This actually basically never applies in real life. In real life we let the criminal off rather than incentivize breaking the law by declaring evidence so gained as fruits of a poisonous tree.
In the almost mythical stereotypical ticking time bomb scenario where morality can only be served by breaking the law the right thing after the bomb is diffused is to attempt to punish both cop and criminal. The cop in that scenario isn't above the law their actions are a willing sacrifice of their own well being in service of a higher good.
He did investigate. There were 60 some cases including in GA. There was a recount and so forth. None of this was a crime.
The crime was threatening the SOS and trying to get the SOS or other officials to "fix" the election after he lost. The crime was getting fake electors to swear on lawful papework that they were lawfully chosen electors.
None of this is even slightly legit. It is as obviously illegal as dealing heroin or hiring a contract killer. Nobody is required to discern the nature of your criminal conspiracy and warn you that you are plotting to commit a crime.
I think though that (using your argument: given the severity/importance of the claim if true) there's even more necessity that you produce even circumstantial evidence to justify suspicion of a crime before making the accusation.
Similar to how cops are supposed to show probable cause before detaining or pulling you over, etc.
Given that he couldn't even come close to producing any kind of evidence, even flimsy evidence, and there's verifiable proof of him pressing election officials and others to illegally alter or create votes to back up his claim, I think it's clear that he knew very well there was no truth to his claims.
This is religion's fault. Fuckin magical thinking's all the average american is capable of. The bill for the 80s has come due