In an attempt to persuade a state judge, Donald Trump made an argument in his Georgia election interference case on Thursday. He skillfully intertwined a complex web of falsehoods and truths to support his stance.
According to Trump’s lawyers, falsehoods are not only protected by the First Amendment but can also be necessary in uncovering the truth.
The court hearing in the morning has the potential to be a crucial milestone in Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’ criminal case against the former president. Judge Scott McAfee, who recently dealt a setback to the DA’s office by investigating her romantic involvement with a prosecutor she supervised, is now assessing whether Trump’s continuous false statements about election fraud in 2020 are protected by the First Amendment.
On Thursday morning, defense lawyer Steve Sadow, representing President Trump, requested the judge to dismiss the criminal charges based on those grounds.
“In court, Sadow argued that campaigning and elections have consistently been regarded as the highest form of protected speech. He emphasized that the speech in question falls under the category of election speech.”
Trump’s team vigorously contested two counts in his indictment that alleged he made false statements and writings. One count relates to Trump’s claim during his notorious phone call with Brad Raffensperger, a top state elections official, on January 2, 2021. Trump falsely asserted that he had actually won Georgia by 400,000 votes, claimed that nearly 5,000 deceased individuals had voted (which was untrue), and accused poll worker Ruby Freeman of being a professional scammer who manipulated ballot boxes (which was unfounded).
According to Sadow, the state views speech as “unprotected” only because it is considered false.
In a lighthearted manner, Donald Wakeford, the Fulton DA’s chief senior district attorney overseeing the anti-corruption division, playfully teased Trump’s lawyer.
“I find it intriguing to hear Mr. Trump’s counsel emphasize the value of falsehoods,” he stated.
Wakeford explained that the defendant’s presence in the courtroom is not due to prosecutors disliking his statements. Rather, it is because such actions harm the government, making it illegal. The issue lies not only in the making of false statements but also in the fact that these statements were sworn to in a court document.
According to Wakeford, it is crucial not to downplay or dismiss Trump’s actions in the aftermath of the November 2020 election as mere expression of his thoughts. The indictment reveals that Trump and his team exerted pressure on state officials to fabricate 11,780 votes in order to overturn the election results. Additionally, they attempted to circumvent the legitimate vote certification process in Congress by employing fake electors.
According to Wakeford, the judge needs to view Trump’s group of individuals as a criminal organization instead.
According to Wakeford, it’s not only the repeated lies that are concerning, but the fact that each lie was used as a criminal act with criminal intent. He argued that the defense’s attempt to portray the defendant as someone innocently asking questions is an effort to rewrite the indictment. Wakeford emphasized that the defendant was not just an individual questioning the election results, but an active participant in a larger criminal conspiracy aimed at overturning an election he did not win.
Another member of the prosecution team, John E. Floyd, a nationally renowned RICO expert, also voiced his opinion. The district attorney had hired Floyd to assist in building the case against the former president, treating it as a racketeering mob takedown. Floyd emphasized to the judge that even if Trump’s statements were factually accurate and could be argued as free speech, they still pointed to his involvement in a larger criminal conspiracy.
He stated that it does not matter if the conduct falls under the First Amendment or not, for the purposes of the RICO statute.
Sadow expressed his disagreement with the notion, expressing shock at the mere thought of the government taking action against Trump for speaking the truth—an obviously hypothetical scenario.
Judge McAfee seemed uncertain about when he would evaluate Trump’s First Amendment claims before the court recessed for lunch. However, he expressed concern that there might be a sudden twist at the last moment. He hinted that they could go through the entire trial, which is anticipated to last for months and be a significant event in history, only for Trump’s legal team to bring up free speech concerns afterward.
McAfee suggested that this move could potentially give Trump a “directed verdict,” a decisive win in one fell swoop, like the ultimate deus ex machina.
Sadow questioned whether it was necessary to go through an entire trial process. He expressed concern about the possibility of reaching a conviction and then having to revisit and decipher certain aspects.
