Two lawsuits by an election worker against President Donald Trump were thrown out by a judge on Monday by granting Trump immunity for statements he made about the election and its integrity.
Judge Michael E. Erdos of the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas threw out both of voting machine supervisor in Delaware County, Pennsylvania James Savage's lawsuits against Trump when it granted him immunity.
Savage claimed that Trump's comments about 2020 election integrity led to "hatred" and death threats against him, which caused him to have two heart attacks.
He accused Trump, Rudy Giuliani, two Delaware County poll watchers, and others of conspiring "to defame him and place him in a false light by publicly and falsely claiming that he tampered with the 2020 Presidential election results.”
Specifically, Savage pointed to statements Trump made during a Pennsylvania State Senate Majority Policy Committee hearing in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, on November 5, 2020, a tweet sent out on November 27, 2020, and a letter sent to the House of Representatives January 6 Committee.
The comments pertained to alleged missing hard drives and accused a voting machine supervisor of uploading tens of thousands of votes for Biden.
Although Savage wasn't mentioned by name, he argued that it was easy to identify him as the election supervisor accused of fraud.
Erdos acknowledged that “undoubtedly a matter of great public concern” and that his remarks, on their face, “dealt with the cornerstone of our democracy elections.”
“Speaking to the public on matters of public concern is part of a President’s official duties. Indeed, the President’s use of the ‘bully pulpit’ to address the Nation has historically been an important feature of the office,” Erdos wrote.
However, Erdos rejected the idea of looking at Trump's mindset or motivation for making the comments, saying that it was not the place of the court to do so.
“Trump’s assertions of course stood to benefit him personally. The stakes could not have been higher with respect to his political future and his status as ‘leader of the free world.’ But that does not mean that they were outside the ‘outer perimeter of his official responsibility,’” Erdos continued.
“Determining Trump’s mindset when he said what he said is not the role of the Court,” Erdos wrote, adding, “Neither is it the Court’s place to assess the wisdom of his comments.”
Erdos said that other cases might look at those motivations, but he would not.
His position is a breath of fresh air compared to other courts and the mainstream press, which are quick to ascribe negative motives to Trump at every opportunity.
Reality doesn't matter at all to them, as long as their agenda is placated.