I'm wondering if being confused can be a valid defense
Imo it's generally accepted that people of a certain maturity are often not that tech savvy. And for people in government who have multiple layers of subordinates this can be doubly true. So when a prominent senior politician laughs off their naivete regarding technology, we might nod along.
And when that person has so much on their mind that they seem confused when speechifying about the details of past events, we generally understand that this can be a normal thing.
So if someone senior in politics, down the road, pleads ignorance and confusion regarding regulations and technology, and is given a pass by the justice system while their younger, tech savvy, regulations reading, subordinates aren't, we shouldn't be greatly surprised.
Especially so when their grueling schedule is currently showing them to being frequently incorrect and/or vague on the history of events they speak about. I'm not sure if this is pertinent enough to post. But I suspect it might be relevant within the next few months. Or it is at least a line of reasoning that is being held in reserve.
= new reply since forum marked as read
