The former president files several fresh motions to toss out Fulton County election interference charges

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
    3·
    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
      2·
      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?