Notably, Trump’s Supreme Court declaration in 2020 influenced an appeals court to recently decide that he was *not* immune from Jan. 6-related lawsuits. So it’s not just a simple rhetorical shift. https://t.co/SLM87F1nlZ pic.twitter.com/h4B6igsNbV
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) January 12, 2024
Eastman’s role is instructive. Not only did he tell multiple state and federal courts he was representing Trump as a candidate, the campaign’s own engagement letter with him described his role as representing Trump as a candidate. https://t.co/SLM87F1nlZ pic.twitter.com/b8oWat5Eb9
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) January 12, 2024
Yes, defendants do sometimes raise contradictory defenses in order to raise a “reasonable doubt.” But that can also be the “me, or your Lyin’ eyes” defense of what you’re asking the jury (or the court) to believe. The point here is, after all, that the courts aren’t buying it. And this defense is a legal one, not a factual one. Reasonable doubt applies to facts, not questions of law.Legal experts say it’s common for litigants to change strategies even in contradictory ways. It’ll be up to the courts to say if Trump was acting in an official or political capacity in late 2020.
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) January 12, 2024
But his rhetorical shift could be a factor they weigh.https://t.co/SLM87F1nlZ pic.twitter.com/OiYJbrEJIk
No comments:
Post a Comment