3 ms·

This is such an interesting point that it really throws the era of 'fake news' a judicial curveball. The same question came up with Trump's phone calls to the

by jariel 6y ago

This is such an interesting point that it really throws the era of 'fake news' a judicial curveball. The same question came up with Trump's phone calls to the Georgia AG when the President was essentially threatening the AG to 'do something'. There is apparently a lot of materiality to the notion of how much the President actually believed the issue of fraud. Which is an altogether amazing new line of defence: "If you believe the lie thoroughly, you're literally less culpable!"

throwawaygh 6y ago
This line of defense -- in both law and politics -- needs to end. Truth precedes morality, not the other way around. Our laws should recognize this.
edgyquant 6y ago
I didn’t know it was a crime isn’t a proper legal defense
- jariel 6y ago
  That's not the defence though. The defence is 'I legitimately believed the election was stolen in Georgia, therefore, pressuring state officials to investigate said issues' doesn't itself constitute a crime. It's entirely plausible that people 'get things wrong' in the real world. But once you have a guy who will believe everything that's to his benefit, and claim that everything not to his credit is a lie ... well then you have a problem. It's really, really worrisome how many intelligent people do not see quite obviously the game he is playing. It's one thing for people who watch Judge Judy every day to maybe have difficulty with a lie so forcefully presented, but most people should know better. It's also interesting how it's viewed from outside the bubble of the US where the ration of 'believers' is vastly lower, and yet, at the same time there are even die-hard cohorts of them outside the border as well. There was a 'Stop The Steal' min-march in Montreal Canada of all places.
  - mr_toad 6y ago
    I don’t know that either insanity or ‘I really believed it’ are defences in a defamation lawsuit. In any case I think it’s unlikely that Rudi will be claiming insanity.
  - tshaddox 6y ago
    > The defence is 'I legitimately believed the election was stolen in Georgia, therefore, pressuring state officials to investigate said issues' doesn't itself constitute a crime. You can’t kill someone because you think you are acting in self-defense. You have to actually be acting in self-defense. Moreover, pressuring officials to manufacture fake evidence, or act as if they had evidence they don’t have, surely ought to be illegal even if would have been possible to find real evidence.
    - jariel 6y ago
      We're not talking about murder. We're talking about a different kind of crime. The law states someone has to 'knowingly try to interfere etc' but the challenge is that you'd have to prove that Trump knew he lost. If he truly believed he had won, well, then he'd just be trying to fix the election, not rig it, right? The call was along the lines of how Mafia bosses talk, so that they don't implicate themselves. Here are some details [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-s-call-georgia-s-raffensperger-could-be-criminal-it-n1252761 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-s-call-g... I think they ought to adjust the laws here. Elected officials should maybe be able to provide evidence for review, but that's it.
      - tshaddox 6y ago
        > The law states someone has to 'knowingly try to interfere etc' but the challenge is that you'd have to prove that Trump knew he lost. But surely he was knowingly try to interfere even if he had in fact won.
    - curryst 6y ago
      > You can’t kill someone because you think you are acting in self-defense. You have to actually be acting in self-defense. That's not true at all. The bar is typically whether a reasonable person would believe that they are at risk of grave bodily harm. It obviously depends on the jury, but there have been a number of shootings where the shooter believed they were acting in self-defense, but were not, and they were ultimately acquitted.

by jariel 6y ago

throwawaygh 6y ago

This line of defense -- in both law and politics -- needs to end. Truth precedes morality, not the other way around. Our laws should recognize this.

edgyquant 6y ago

I didn’t know it was a crime isn’t a proper legal defense

jariel 6y ago
That's not the defence though. The defence is 'I legitimately believed the election was stolen in Georgia, therefore, pressuring state officials to investigate said issues' doesn't itself constitute a crime. It's entirely plausible that people 'get things wrong' in the real world. But once you have a guy who will believe everything that's to his benefit, and claim that everything not to his credit is a lie ... well then you have a problem. It's really, really worrisome how many intelligent people do not see quite obviously the game he is playing. It's one thing for people who watch Judge Judy every day to maybe have difficulty with a lie so forcefully presented, but most people should know better. It's also interesting how it's viewed from outside the bubble of the US where the ration of 'believers' is vastly lower, and yet, at the same time there are even die-hard cohorts of them outside the border as well. There was a 'Stop The Steal' min-march in Montreal Canada of all places.
- mr_toad 6y ago
  I don’t know that either insanity or ‘I really believed it’ are defences in a defamation lawsuit. In any case I think it’s unlikely that Rudi will be claiming insanity.
- tshaddox 6y ago
  > The defence is 'I legitimately believed the election was stolen in Georgia, therefore, pressuring state officials to investigate said issues' doesn't itself constitute a crime. You can’t kill someone because you think you are acting in self-defense. You have to actually be acting in self-defense. Moreover, pressuring officials to manufacture fake evidence, or act as if they had evidence they don’t have, surely ought to be illegal even if would have been possible to find real evidence.
  - jariel 6y ago
    We're not talking about murder. We're talking about a different kind of crime. The law states someone has to 'knowingly try to interfere etc' but the challenge is that you'd have to prove that Trump knew he lost. If he truly believed he had won, well, then he'd just be trying to fix the election, not rig it, right? The call was along the lines of how Mafia bosses talk, so that they don't implicate themselves. Here are some details [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-s-call-georgia-s-raffensperger-could-be-criminal-it-n1252761 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-s-call-g... I think they ought to adjust the laws here. Elected officials should maybe be able to provide evidence for review, but that's it.
    - tshaddox 6y ago
      > The law states someone has to 'knowingly try to interfere etc' but the challenge is that you'd have to prove that Trump knew he lost. But surely he was knowingly try to interfere even if he had in fact won.
  - curryst 6y ago
    > You can’t kill someone because you think you are acting in self-defense. You have to actually be acting in self-defense. That's not true at all. The bar is typically whether a reasonable person would believe that they are at risk of grave bodily harm. It obviously depends on the jury, but there have been a number of shootings where the shooter believed they were acting in self-defense, but were not, and they were ultimately acquitted.