CT Blue

CTBlue has come into possession of the draft of a brief written by somewhat reputable lawyers retained by the very stable genius to represent him in his upcoming criminal cases, including that arising from his attempt to threaten the Georgia Secretary of State into changing the election results. This is a draft related to the Georgia case, and is clearly not the final product, as our sources tell us that it is anticipated that the number of examples of actions proving Trump’s mental illness will be greatly expanded. Our sources tell us that they have every confidence that the anticipated defense will be successful.The complete draft follows:

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLEA OF INSANITY

FACTS: Defendant Trump submits that he should be allowed to plead “Guilty, with an explanation” to the crimes of which he has been charged, the elements of which offenses are conclusively established by 1) an unfortunate tape recording of a conversation among the defendant, the Georgia Secretary of State, and the Secretary’s counsel, and 2) almost every word that has come out of his mouth since November 3, 2020.

The “explanation” consists of the fact that the defendant was legally insane at the time he committed the acts of which he is charged. For that matter he was insane for years and years before he committed said acts and remains insane today.

I. ARGUMENT

The court hardly needs reminding that a person is not responsible for criminal conduct if, at the time of the offense, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, he or she was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his or her acts.

Defendant submits that it is obvious to even the casual observer that, given this definition, he is insane. In fact, using almost any definition, it’s obvious he is insane. In support of his position, the defendant submits the following.

II. IT HAS LONG BEEN OBVIOUS THAT THE DEFENDANT IS MENTALLY ILL

The defendant’s mental illness has long been obvious, such that even obscure bloggers in Connecticut were commenting on it shortly after he was elected to the presidency by a deluded minority of American voters, and mental health professionals soon weighed in with their considered opinion that the defendant is bat-shit crazy..

In further support of this assertion, let facts be submitted to a candid world:

• Only a mentally ill person would suggest that one should inject Lysol.
• Only a mentally ill person would publicly brag -over and over- about winning an award that doesn’t exist.
• Only a mentally ill person would call a news conference, answer questions for 6 minutes, and then free associate for 56 minutes.
• Only a mentally ill person would take an unproven and dangerous drug against the advice of all experts, to which experts said person had immediate access.
• Only a mentally ill person, charged with the responsibilities of being President of the United States, would demand that Americans waste water because he is unable to get his toilet to flush properly.
• Only a mentally ill person would claim to see things that he never saw, unless he was lying, but that probability will be discussed in the next section of this brief.
• Only a mentally ill person would gushingly praise a foreign leader after said foreign leader humiliated him.
• Only a mentally ill person would expose himself to needless ridicule by altering a weather forecast with a sharpie instead of simply admitting that he is not a weather forecaster.
• Only a mentally ill person would make the phone call at issue in this case.
• Even in America, only a mentally ill person who was holding elective office would consider his own petty personal interests to be more important than the lives of thousands of people lost to plague due to his indifference to their plight, and only a mentally ill person, charged with such responsibility, would actively encourage people to ignore medical guidelines designed to minimize the illness and death caused by such a plague.

The foregoing is simply a sampling of links tagged by the aforementioned obscure Connecticut blogger with the tag “Trump Mental Illness”, with other examples so well known that links are not required. The undersigned attorney for the defendant has queried multiple individuals and all agree that the defendant has done so many crazy things during the course of the last four years that it has all become a blur, and that the foregoing is not even a representative sampling of the hundreds of things that defendant has done and said that establish beyond doubt that he is mentally ill. While diagnoses differ with respect to his secondary issues, most professionals agree that his primary problem is extreme narcissism.combined with a sociopathic personality, pathological lying and paranoia.

Defendant, through, and at the insistence of, his attorney, readily admits that this diagnosis is accurate, so far as it goes, though it really just describes the tip of the iceberg.

Thus, the first element of the defense, mental illness, is clearly established.

III. DUE TO HIS MENTAL ILLNESS THE DEFENDANT WAS UNABLE TO APPRECIATE THE NATURE AND QUALITY OF THE WRONGFULNESS OF HIS ACTS

This court can take judicial notice of the defendant’s conduct both before and during his term of office.

It can take notice, for instance, of the fact that fact checking organizations have established beyond doubt that you can tell when he is emitting an untruth when his mouth is open. However, defendant, through counsel, urges the court to consider that while the defendant never tells the truth, he also never lies, because he always believes his lies while they are coming out of his mouth, though he may not believe them, or believe that he said them, a minute later. The court should also take judicial notice of the undeniable fact that while the defendant, given his position, has access to the actual facts pertaining to any given situation, through intelligence briefings and other reliable sources, his mental illness has led him to prefer to believe any conspiracy theory that suits his purposes.

The court can also take judicial notice of the fact that the defendant’s entire life story establishes beyond doubt that he cannot tell right from wrong. The undersigned attorney has had prior experience with clients who cannot tell right from wrong, but those individuals would refrain from doing the wrong thing if it was explained to them that it was wrong. This defendant is incapable of even that level of behavior, because his narcissism convinces him that he is entitled to do whatever he feels is in his own self interest, even though he is often (usually?…almost always?) incapable of seeing what is actually in his best interests.The court can take judicial notice, for instance, of the undoubted fact that had he done the right thing with regard to COVID, as he was advised to do by the few experts he allowed to approach him, he might have actually won the recent election, which does make one wonder whether God sent COVID in order to save our democracy. But that question may be left to the theologians to debate.

Thus, the second element of the defense is satisfied in that the mental illness from which the defendant suffers prevents him from appreciating the difference between truth and falsehood, and to differentiate right from wrong. It remains to determine if the defendant’s mental illness was a factor in the specific crimes alleged.

IV. THE DEFENDANT IS NOT GUILTY (BY REASON OF INSANITY) OF CRIMINAL ACTS IN WHICH HE ENGAGED

In the instant case the defendant is charged with 1) threatening a state official in order to get said official to perform an illegal act; 2) attempting to overturn the results of an election; and 3) solicitation of election fraud, as well as a number of other criminal violations the undersigned is too lazy to list. As stated above, the defendant admits, again at the adamant insistence of his attorney, that his acts, had they been committed by a sane person, would be sufficient to warrant a finding of guilty on all counts.

However, as has been set forth above, the defendant suffers from a mental illness that deprives him of the ability to know right from wrong or truth from falsehood. At the moment the defendant emitted the falsehoods to the state officers in question in this case, he believed them with all his heart and soul, though as a matter of law he now stipulates that he had no rational foundation for doing so. But isn’t a lack of rationality a further proof of insanity?

When he threatened the state officials he was just doing what he has done all his life, a life in which he was never even told that such behavior was wrong, not that he would have cared. The court should also consider the further extenuating factor that his political party, rather than telling him this sort of thing was wrong, actively encouraged this behavior when only a single Republican in Congress voted to impeach or convict him of precisely the kind of behavior of which he is now accused.

So far as attempting to overturn a fairly run election, the court should bear in mind that the defendant has always lived his life believing that he should do whatever it takes to benefit himself, no matter the harm it does to others. Given his mental state, it would never occur to him that it was more important to have a functioning democracy than four more years of his incompetence.

V. CONCLUSION

It is respectfully submitted that the court should find the defendant not guilty by reason of insanity. While the defendant would prefer that he not be committed to an insane asylum for the rest of his life, he recognizes that probability, given that he is somewhat of a danger to himself, and a definite danger to others. All things considered, however, he prefers an asylum to spending the rest of his life in prison.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

Dewey, Cheatham and Howe
(Not affiliated with Rudy
Giuliani, Sidney Powell, or Lin Wood)