Trump "can't be punished" claims Defense Attorney

[Phoenix Fields 2,714]

Donald Trump’s attorney argued Thursday that Fulton County prosecutors cannot prosecute the former president only on the basis that his allegations were “false.”

Prosecutors allege that what Trump said is “false in the eyes of the state” so it has “lost all protection to the First Amendment,” Steve Sadow said. But, Trump’s lawyer argued, comments that aren’t factually accurate are still protected under the First Amendment.

“What this court has to decide is the state’s position that fraud or false statements, under these circumstances … is that enough?” Sadow said of the charges.

“The mere fact that it’s false is all that they have,” Sadow said, adding that “there’s no allegation beyond the fact that those statements are made.”

Source

[Ladle Ghoulash 52,854]

Such a disingenuous argument lmao. It’s not *merely* that the allegations of fraud are false, it’s also that he *acted upon them* to the extent that he pressured the state government to overturn the results of the election. Real clown **** 

[bionic 50,111]

If that's the best argument they've got then Trump should ask for a refund, not that he's actually going to pay his lawyers anyway

[CoolTrainerTerry 1,567]

...he just admitted that what he said was false ...

[NUTELLA 26,683]

[Ladle Ghoulash 52,854]

10 minutes ago, CoolTrainerTerry said:

...he just admitted that what he said was false ...

The defense lawyer said, “false according to the state” which isn’t actually an admission

[Roughhouse Dandy 13,612]

10 minutes ago, CoolTrainerTerry said:

...he just admitted that what he said was false ...

His lawyers have been trying to use that as an excuse in court for years. His fans just don't bother paying attention to anything that isn't said by him behind a podium or on his Twitter knock-off. 

[Ladle Ghoulash 52,854]

16 minutes ago, Roughhouse Dandy said:

His lawyers have been trying to use that as an excuse in court for years. His fans just don't bother paying attention to anything that isn't said by him behind a podium or on his Twitter knock-off. 

What’s interesting is that this is actually a *slightly* more tactful version of what previous lawyers have said: in 2020, Giuliani, point blank, admitted under oath that the cases being brought forth to challenge the results weren’t on the basis of fraud; here, on the other hand, Trump’s new lawyer is creating a rhetorical loophole that implies the existence of an alternate vote count where Trump won (“according to the state there was no fraud, however, according to some unspecified source, there was fraud and he won”). It‘s still a fundamentally stupid argument, ofc, but not technically an admission.

[MOT 3,606]

I watched a lot of the hearing on youtube (I know I know). The state are not claiming that Trump behaved criminally simply by making false statements. They are claiming that he behaved criminally by saying what he said as part of an illegal plot.

[PartySick 172,531]

It's giving Fox News saying "we can't be held liable because we're an entertainment network and no reasonable person would believe what we report"

[Economy 52,845]

20 hours ago, Westerosi said:

, Trump’s lawyer argued, comments that aren’t factually accurate are still protected under the First Amendment.

Source

Bruh with laws like this why even have a justice system anyway?

 

What irritates me about the "justice" system the most is that technicalities always seem to matter way more than the principals and fairness.

 

Dont call it justice system at this point. Just refer it to the law system. Cuz at least thats accurate