In court today, the lawyers representing Donald Trump argued that they’re client was never informed that overturning an election is a crime, and that every citizen should have fair warning that what they are doing is a crime.

I was told by my parents, a few lawyers, and even a couple of judges that “ignorance of the law is not a defense.” Albeit my “crimes” did not rise to the level of overturning an election or staging an attempted coup, but I’d venture to guess that the level of crime does not matter. This would mean everyone gets one of each crime. We could all run over one person and get a warning. We could also put a body through a wood chipper with just a warning.

I think you get my point.

Leaving aside why ignorance is not a defense, by proffering this defense, this seems to be an admission of guilt. You can’t say you did something and didn’t know it was a crime and get off on that crime if you did t do the deed.

He is also arguing that a sitting president can do anything at all with immunity.

By that, he is saying it’s legal for a sitting president to order the military to assassinate their political opponents.

This is spurious at first glance. We know the president doesn’t have immunity because he has rules to follow. Those rules are the laws spelled out in the constitution and elsewhere. He can’t declare war, he can’t create a government budget, etc. But, his followers will believe him because he is their chosen one and he got lawyers to parrot him.

He does not care about anyone but himself.

Oh, and the DC Circuit denied his claim of immunity. No one is above the law.

Leave a Reply