If you were to defend the guy they arrested for shooting at White House correspondents dinner, would it be realistic and or logical to argue that the defendant was not trying to assassinate the president but that he was trying to make a political statement, thus the charges brought against him should reflect that distinction.
We know that he was not trying to actually cause bodily harm to anyone, especially the president because 1) he never got close to the ballroom, 2) he didn’t cause bodily harm to anyone, and 3) the plan, as executed, demonstrates that although he could have executed it in a way where people got hurt, he chose not to execute it that way, because the intent was never to hurt anyone, but to make a political statement.
Would this fly? Or is it too far fetched?