They are violating his first amendment rights.
Donald Trump’s legal team made a strong plea to a judge, requesting the dismissal of the Georgia criminal case surrounding his attempts to overturn the 2020 election results. They argued that the indictment breached Trump’s first amendment rights by essentially charging him for what they termed as fundamental political speech.
In a motion aimed at dismissing the election interference case, Trump’s lawyers paralleled their argument to the one made previously to discard a federal indictment in Washington DC, which had been rejected. The crux of their filing was a direct challenge to the accusations that Trump and his cohorts violated Georgia’s racketeering statute in their endeavors to reverse his electoral defeat. This included referencing his January 2, 2021 call pressuring the Georgia secretary of state to “find” 11,780 votes. The motion, spanning 19 pages, attempted to reframe the indictment, positioning it as an effort to criminalize Trump’s political dialogue. They contended that Trump’s claims of widespread fraud aimed at instigating state legislature investigations.
Trump’s attorney, Steve Sadow, emphasized that the assertions made were directed towards the entities responsible for government operations, investigations, and decisions on such complaints. Sadow argued that criminalizing Trump’s allegations of election fraud would infringe upon his first amendment rights, citing previous US supreme court rulings that safeguard speech on contested political subjects, even if deemed false by the government.
However, prospects for the case’s dismissal seem challenging for Trump. US district judge Tanya Chutkan previously denied a similar motion in Washington, stating in a comprehensive 48-page opinion that core political speech doesn’t shield individuals from prosecution if it’s linked to unlawful activities.
Chutkan’s decision underscored that even if Trump’s claims were factually accurate, using “core political speech” to further criminal pursuits doesn’t grant immunity from prosecution. She also noted that citing the precedent of United States v Alvarez (pertaining to the Stolen Valor Act) wasn’t pertinent to Trump’s case, as the supreme court hadn’t undermined established principles allowing prosecution when speech is used in advancing criminal acts.
Previously, Trump and 18 others pleaded not guilty to the racketeering charges. Some individuals, such as Sidney Powell, Jenna Ellis, Kenneth Chesebro, and Scott Hall, subsequently accepted plea deals and became witnesses for the prosecution. However, it’s reported that the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office doesn’t plan to extend plea deals to Trump, Mark Meadows, Rudy Giuliani, and a few other key allies.
