Posted on 12/18/2023 12:21:55 PM PST by thegagline
Former President Donald Trump, in a new court filing Monday, again urged a Georgia judge to dismiss his Fulton County election interference charges on First Amendment grounds, arguing that the indictment against him is "categorically invalid" because it seeks to criminalize "core political speech."
"President Trump enjoys the same robust First Amendment rights as every other American," said the new filing from Trump attorneys Steve Sadow and Jennifer Little. "The indictment here does not merely criminalize conduct with an incidental impact on protected speech; instead, it directly targets core protected political speech and activity."
The new filing supports the arguments Trump's attorneys previously made in court during a hearing earlier this month, in which they said the indictment "violates free speech." ***
In Friday's filing, Trump's attorneys argue that the First Amendment "not only embraces but encourages" the type of actions Trump undertook in Georgia -- including urging Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in his infamous phone call to "find" enough votes for Trump to overcome his loss in the state.
"Because the claim the 2020 election was rigged and stolen is protected by First Amendment when it is made in a public speech, it is equally protected by the First Amendment when it is made to government officials in an act of petitioning or advocacy," the filing states.
***
The speech is still protected, the attorneys argue, even if Trump's statements were false.
"Under the First Amendment, the Government may not prohibit or criminalize speech on disputed social, political, and historical issues simply because the Government determines that some views are 'true' and others are 'false,'" the filing said. "The fact that the prosecution alleges the speech was 'false' does not change that conclusion, particularly within the political context." ***
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Dissenting opinions do not create binding precedent.
The judicial system will not be satisfied until Trump is convicted on all charges in all cases. Massive fines and imprisonment.
While you are correct…dissenting opinions do not create precedent…the make up of the Court since 2012 has changed significantly. Perhaps Alito’s views are far more likely to be in the majority now and Trump knows he is arguing to a higher court…as no matter the lower court’s ruling, this is aire to be appealed by the losing side.
Do you have a link to the filing?
Trying to “find” votes happens in every election. Very common language.
“Do you have a link to the filing?”
I think this is it.
https://www.scribd.com/document/693397085/23SC188947-BRIEF#
Al Gore looked at every hanging chad to find a vote.
I’d think they could come up with a stronger argument.
Why wait to file this motion? This should have done on the first day or did I miss something.
It resembles a pro se inmate brief. Ugh.
The only thing the judge looks at are the consequences to themselves.
Some do and some don’t. The judge presiding over this matter was a member of the originalist Federalist Society which is a good thing. (I too am a member)
“Al Gore looked at every hanging chad to find a vote.”
He even had a BLIND guy looking and finding them.
Gore almost won
The Left wing FL state supreme court was going to let the
Demonrats harvest all the spoiled votes in Broward Dade and Palm Beach
If it were only core political speech. The indictment lists much more than core political speech.
Agreed. The brief ignores this fact. Neither the DA nor the Judge will be fooled by this willful omission.
Aliito’s dissent seems irrelevant to me. First Amendment, prima facia grounds for dismissal.
Unfortunately, Trump’s attorneys didn’t see it that way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.