Thread by @SethAbramson

I can't believe I'm going to stoop to sending you to Wikipedia, @BradHeath, but this is such an important issue that it needs to be laid out in the simplest possible way. You need to understand what "willful ignorance" or "willful blindness" is in the law: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willful_b…

https://twitter.com/bradheath/status/1345942608279990283

Trump knows from his lawyers, election officials in Georgia, the results of forensic investigations by the GBI and the FBI, major-media investigative reports, and his advisors that his conspiracy theories aren't objectively reasonable under the law's "reasonable person" standard.

During the call we hear Trump being told by government officials that his data is wrong and him unreasonably refusing to hear it. We hear him being told by his lawyers that he's wrong and him refusing to hear it. @BradHeath, in the US you can't escape criminal liability this way.

But Trump doesn't simply reject the data being given to him by those with the authority to create a reasonable-person obligation on his part—he's simultaneously *issuing threats* to try to get his way. This is also an element of the mens rea of this potential election fraud case.

In this situation—under the applicable legal standards—Trump "knew or should have known" the votes he was attempting to coerce the Georgia Secretary of State into adding to his tabulation were "fictitious." The "willful blindness" or "willful ignorance" doctrine permits mens rea.

As for an "advice of counsel" defense, it's obliterated by the fact that *he rejects the statements of his lawyers repeatedly* on this hour-long phone call the whole nation is listening to tonight. There's no evidence he has ever listened to his attorneys.

https://twitter.com/bradheath/status/1345946660703260675?s=19

In writing the Proof trilogy over 2 years, I repeatedly encountered confirmed instances of the president being advised clearly by his lawyers not to do something and then doing it anyway. That evidence becomes immediately relevant if Trump attempts an "advice of counsel" defense.

Moreover, the "advice of counsel" defense would only apply to legal determinations, not factual ones. Donald Trump in fact has *far* better access to election information than his attorneys do. There is no reason he would be relying on counsel's advice on this matter, @BradHeath.

America must never create imaginary new legal hurdles for valid state or federal criminal prosecutions simply to protect the rich, powerful, and/or famous. The defenses I hear people indicating Trump could use would never be raised in a case involving an average citizen. *Never*.

Nor do prosecutors take into account possible legal defenses a defendant may raise—when deciding whether to prosecute an individual—if those defenses rely on facts not currently in evidence. So any Trump defense that relies on guesses rather than what we know is a non-issue here.

One last point: Trump *says* on the tape where his info is coming from—and it's not his lawyers. He describes his sources as (his words) "Trump media," which is an acknowledgment that his sources favor/seek to advance his political career. Again objectively "unreasonable" by law.