More than a decade ago, the Supreme Court ruled that it is not illegal to lie unless the lie is intended to gain something valuable. This means that elected officials, like former President Donald Trump, have the right to lie to the public. However, the recent indictment against Trump argues that his lies were intended to gain an unlawful benefit – a second term in office. This kind of lying falls under the “categorical exceptions” to the First Amendment, which includes speech related to criminal conduct.
To prove that Trump knew he was lying, the special prosecutor, Jack Smith, will likely present evidence showing that Trump was repeatedly told by advisors and officials that there was no evidence of widespread electoral fraud. However, there may also be evidence that Trump was influenced by supporters who fed him false information and conspiracy theories. It will be difficult for jurors to determine what Trump truly believed.
One possible legal argument is the doctrine of “willful blindness.” This means that if a defendant, like Trump, deliberately ignores clear evidence of a fact, they can still be found guilty even if they claim ignorance. It is possible that jurors may find Trump guilty based on this argument.
Overall, the prosecution will have to convince 12 jurors that Trump knowingly lied and intended to gain an unfair advantage. The outcome will depend on the strength of the evidence and the jury’s interpretation of Trump’s actions.
>>Join our Facebook Group be part of community. <<