In new challenge to indictment, Trump's lawyers argue he had good basis to question election results

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

WASHINGTON (AP) — Donald Trump had a “good faith” basis to question the results of the 2020 election, his lawyers said in demanding that prosecutors turn over any evidence related to voting irregularities and potential foreign interference in the contest won by Democrat Joe Biden.

A defense motion filed late Monday in federal court in Washington asserts that Trump was not obligated to accept at face value the judgments of government officials who time and again found no widespread fraud in the election. It floats the possibility that foreign actors might have influenced the race and alleges that federal officials gave “false assurances" to the public about the security of the election that “outpaced” what the government actually knew.

“It was not unreasonable at the time, and certainly not criminal, for President Trump to disagree with officials now favored by the prosecution and to rely instead on the independent judgment that the American people elected him to use while leading the country,” the lawyers wrote.

-snip-

Courts around the country and Trump's own attorney general have found no evidence of fraud that could have affected the outcome, and the Homeland Security Department's cybersecurity arm pronounced it “the most secure in American history.” Smith's team alleges that Trump, a Republican, ignored all of those findings and launched an illegal plot to undo the election and block the peaceful transfer of power.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/challenge-indictment-trumps-lawyers-argue-132154421.html

Yet in the nearly 250 years of this country no one has been a sore loser like yuge Donny.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

1. This position is grasping at straws

The only foreign actor identified was Putin who worked to elect TFG

[stopdiggin]

2. this is the pretty much the case in a nutshell

were Trump's 'beliefs' (even if erroneous) legitimate? IMO the prosecution must prove either a) that Trump really didn't hold such beliefs - or b) that such beliefs, even if truly held, were so irrational and deconstructed by evidence (and prevailing opinion) as to have no legitimacy. (and thus criminal to act upon?)

And then of course the biggy. Regardless the evidence presented - will a jury of 12 varied and disparate citizens bring down that verdict?

[House of Roberts]

3. Didn't he lose, like, 50 times in court, challenging the election?

Seems that alone would negate his whining excuses and lies.

These lawyers all need to take up bricklaying or roofing as alternate careers. They aren't worth spit as legal counsel.

[Jim__]

4. I guess a good basis to question the results is that he hasn't seen absolute proof that there might not be evidence ...

I guess a good basis to question the results is that he hasn't seen absolute proof that there might not be evidence that the election was completely without error.

[gratuitous]

5. Well why didn't you say so?

Golly, nobody's used the "good faith" basis for breaking the law. Could have saved us all a lot of trouble these last three years if Dumb Donald had just brought this up earlier. All that evidence and testimony about how he lost the 2020 election in a landslide just vanishes!

[triron]

6. Delay.

[Takket]

7. i was pretty upset about the 2016 results......

but no matter how upset I was that didn't give me the right to lead an insurrection. Also he had his day in court, and lost, over 60 times on the results.

This argument is nonsense.