Ok. Is that the narrative from the media sphere? That this is free speech being prosecuted as criminality?
I would think that it doesn’t matter what is said by anyone at this point in a politically charged zeitgeist, especially on either side of the aisle. I’ll make my own conclusions based on the facts I have on hand, and I am saying I don’t have enough of those facts to finalize anything — but the legal facts established by this indictment, read in whole, are pretty damning.
Do we want a man that can just be led around like a leash by whoever says a honeyed word he is primed by self-interest to want to be true, in office? To be led into criminality? We know that this is likely going to be his defense: he truly believed in what he was saying, and was led astray by bad counsel, so you must acquit. There is very little other strategy I can come at this with, and while it might remit some of the guilt it doesn’t absolve it.
Yes your honor, I might have conspired to kill that man. However, I was told that he was a serial killer by my subordinates, and those subordinates were very persuasive. I did not listen to the 94 out of 100 other subordinates and colleagues who said it’s a conspiracy from the mothership, because I wanted to believe I was performing justice.