Is Trump's stupidity his best defense in the stolen documents case?
I honestly believe he is too stupid to understand that he did anything wrong. Seriously this is the same dumbass that wanted to launch nuclear missiles at hurricanes to stop them from hitting the US and said soldiers took over airports during the revolutionary war,
@Canicu69 Did Biden want to launch nuclear missiles at hurricanes to stop them from hitting the US? Did Biden say soldiers took over airports during the revolutionary war? Did Biden look directly into a solar eclipse? No he didn't so the poster must be talking about Donald J. Trump.
No, some of the evidence in the indictment shows that Trump
• brandished docs he knew were sensitive to persons not having clearance, • knew that this was wrong • knew he was no longer PotUS • and, therefore, that he could no longer declassify them
Since(?) the initial post, we've now had two recordings of Trump saying some/most/all of these things.
I think he can PRETEND to be that stupid, but he had given testimony without knowing he was giving it--so, much more trustworthy than solicited testimony in Court.
Nope. Ignorance of the law is no defense and excuse. That legal principle goes at least as far back as Aristotle. Pleading stupidity is just another form of pleading ignorance.
In law, ignorantia juris non excusat (Latin for "ignorance of the law excuses not"),[1] or ignorantia legis neminem excusat ("ignorance of law excuses no one"),[2] is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely by being unaware of its content.
European-law countries with a tradition of Roman law may also use an expression from Aristotle translated into Latin: nemo censetur ignorare legem ("nobody is thought to be ignorant of the law") or ignorantia iuris nocet ("not knowing the law is harmful").