• treefrog@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    4 months ago

    Using that as evidence would fall under questioning his motivation and intent. That’s why the language about not being able to do that is in the decision.

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      Take conspiracy for example. The elements of conspiracy are:

      1. Two or more people agreed to commit a crime

      2. All conspirators had the specific intent to commit the crime

      3. At least one of the conspirators committed an overt act

      Trump conspires with false electors to rig the election. Trump’s is immune to charges stemming from his conversation with Pence, but he is not immune to charges of conspiring with false electors. His communication with Pence cannot be considered evidence of intent (#2), But it can be the overt act (#3) of the conspiracy.

      • treefrog@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        The courts can’t even raise issue 2. That’s what you’re missing. Courts aren’t allowed to question the President’s intent.

        How can you prove conspiracy if you can’t prove that all conspirators intended to commit a crime?

        • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          They absolutely can question intent. They just can’t use an “official act” as evidence of intent. They can use all the “unofficial acts” they want to demonstrate intent. And, once they decide that the bribe was an unofficial act, the door is opened to use it for intent as well.