Joining me now is the former president's newest attorney to his team, John Lauro. John, thanks so much for being here tonight. You've read through this indictment. What is your defense going to look like? Well, it's basically a regurgitation of the J six committee report. But our focus is on the fact that this is an attack on free speech and political advocacy, and there's nothing that's more protected under the First Amendment than political speech. So at the end, our defense is going to be focusing on the fact that what we have now is an administration that has criminalized the free speech and advocacy of a prior administration during the time that there is a political election going on. That's unprecedented. We've never seen that in the United States in the history of the United States. So literally, what we have is an attack and really an effort to to not only criminalize but also censor free speech. Donald Trump had every right to advocate for his position while he was president. He saw irregular charities. He saw deficiencies in the election process. He raised those he was being told under oath by people around the country that there were problems with the election. He also saw in real time that the rules were changing without the state legislatures weighing in. And ultimately, he had every right in fact, a response the ability as a United States president to raise those issues. And now his advocacy is being criminalized Well, those are secretaries of state who were making those changes in those states because of the pandemic that was happening. You talk about free speech. Jackson noted Trump's right to free speech and to contest the election results. But what he says in this indictment is that when that did not work, the defendant, your client, pursued unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes and subverting the election results. And that that is why he is being charged here, not because of anything related to free speech. Yeah, but that's factually inaccurate because the ultimate request that Mr. Trump made to Vice President Pence was pause the vote counting, allow the states to weigh in ultimately an audit or recertify. And under Article two, Section one clause to the the actual responsibility for qualifying electors is in the state legislatures. Mr. Trump had the advice of counsel. Mr. Eastman, who was one of the most respected constitutional scholars in the United States, giving him advice and guidance. That's pure politics. You may disagree with it. And people have spirited arguments about the law all the time. And that's why lawyers are in business. But we've never had a situation where a spirited debate about the Constitution has become a criminal case. What's going to happen when there's a Republican administration? Is there going to be an effort to criminalize speech by Democrats? Is there going to be an effort to characterize something that a Democrat politician says it's not? That doesn't meet some kind of true standard as to at the Department of Justice that that's going to be the subject of a criminal indictment. We've now entered a constitutional abyss as a result of this indictment. But, John, I should note that you're saying that he was just asking him to send them back. I was just talking to the chief of staff who was with Punch that day. He said he was being asked to do something illegal that Pence did not have the right to do to reject him. And you mentioned the attorneys there that you say John Eastman, he's a coconspirator in this indictment. I should note in the indictment, list, all of the people who told Trump that his claims about election fraud weren't true, including the vice president. Senior Justice Department leaders, the director of National Intelligence SESAR, which of course, is in charge of making sure elections in the U.S. are secure. Senior White House attorneys, campaign staffers, what we're seeing this leaders that you just mentioned there in the courts. Right. What was not true that that there were states where ballots were sent out without people asking for them, where there were changes in verification and where there were instances where ballots were not being supervised at drop off places. The president was told given advice that under these circumstances the state legislatures have the ultimate ability to qualify electors. He followed that advice. Now, you may disagree as to whether or not those things actually occurred or not. That's why we have political debate. We don't have criminal trials over that. We have the discussion. Like magic happens, things actually occurred or not, John, not under the First Amendment matters. If those things actually occurred because not not at all. Because under the First Amendment is actually fraud. No, no. The First Amendment. John, let me stop you there, because if he's saying that there was fraud, the First Amendment doesn't allow the president of the United States to go and claim there was fraud when he was told there was not fraud and then tried to subvert the election by overturning legitimate electors I mean, it says it right here in the actual indictment. Absolutely. The First Amendment. So if we're going to have a situation where the Department of Justice is going to fact check politicians and indict politicians for political speech and whether or not they're factually accurate, then this country will shut down politically because it's a never ending cycle of tit for tat. And that's the risk of injecting politics into the criminal justice system. So right now, people disagree with President Trump. What's going to happen four years from now if somebody disagrees with President Biden in terms of what he said during the election? That's why we don't criminalize political speech. Political speech under the First Amendment has has an almost absolute protection. Nobody gets to judge whether it's true or not. Except the American people. And we do that in an election. We do that in an election. We do that in the case of a president by impeachment. But we don't indict people for speech. I got to stop you there. But Trump is not being indicted for lying here. He is being indicted for using unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes and trying to subvert the election results. Well, what's the unlawful means? There was an effort to get alternate electors trying to choose, which is a fake electors who weren't legitimate. That was used in 1960 by John Kennedy. And it was a protocol that was constitutionally accepted. So there's nothing wrong about that. In fact in the indictment itself, it doesn't allege that there was anything wrong. And the final ask that Mr. Trump made to Vice President Pence was simply pause the voting. There's nothing inherently unconstitutional or illegal about that. In fact, he had an opinion from a very well-known constitutional scholar that said that's fine. That that's legal. Mr. Trump is not a lawyer. He's a businessman general. And officials said that that was not that was not fine, that that was certainly illegal, that he was asking them. They weren't just asking for a cause. He was asking to overturn the legitimate results that. John, let me ask you, because you point out that he was going to show up in person. He was John he was asking me to sing a song. He was asking for his arraignment on that. So that's up to the court. You know, the court makes those decisions. So we're prepared to follow whatever the court rules are. John, the judge issued a summons and he will appear either virtually or in-person Okay. So it's not clear if it's virtually or in-person. But one thing to go back to, he's not asking for your client. No, no. You have to look at his lawyer. Look at what he said. You have to look at what he said at the Ellipse. If you read the Ellipse, you got to let me finish. I want to know when your client is on what Page said, exactly what he said from the secretary of state of the state of Georgia. John, you got to let me finish my point here. Finish your. Absolutely. Your point is on tape with the former with the secretary of state from the state of Georgia asking him to find him. One more vote than he would need to win the state. That's not asking for a pass. He's asking for votes that he did not get in, that he was asking for the secretary of state to identify votes that were not counted properly and factor that in. And by the way, that that discussion took place with dozens of people on a phone call with lawyers involved. And no one was suggesting doing anything illegal. And no one during that call said, Mr. President, that's beyond the bounds. This is politics. This indictment is about pure politics. We engage in vigorous debate in this country about politics. What we don't do is criminalize political speech. This indictment is a game changer. It's the first time that we've taken political speech and said we're going to criminalize it by the party that's in control against the party that's contesting the next election, where the two individuals involved are going to be running for office. That is an incredible set of circumstances. John, if you believe that you have a good defense here for your client, do you believe that this trial should happen before the 2024 election? It should not interfere with the election. But really what the indictment has done is identify seven states where there were irregularities. I need to look at what so-called evidence is going to be presented. I could see this trial lasting nine months or a year. But it's going to take. Mr. Trump is entitled to a defense. The government has had three years to investigate this. And now they want to rush this to trial in the middle of a political season. What does that tell you? We deserve as much time as any American citizen to defend on these issues as anyone else. And for the government to have three years to do it and then expect us to do it in three weeks or four weeks. It's just ridiculous. Every single person in the United States is entitled to due process, including the former president. Okay, John. Well, just notable, given your client was saying that they took too long to make these charges. But John Lauro, thank you for joining us. I know that we do see you as many times going forward as you were representing the former president in this case. Anderson, back to you. Caitlin, things back with Van Jones. Just Gareth. Ellie Hoofnagle is a fair Griffin. David Urban and Jeff Duncan certainly heard a lot there from the president's former president's new attorney. What do you make of his case? Interesting take. I'm unconvinced by the First Amendment argument. And here's why. Even if you take it as a given that the First Amendment is extremely broad, especially in the arena of political speech, it's simply not true that to quote the lawyer, just as he said, First Amendment protects all speech. That's not true. One of the lines, even if you go all the way out to the margins, is fraud. Now, lying itself is usually protected by the First Amendment, but lying to steal something that is criminal and that is fraud in the theory made in this indictment is that he lied in order to steal the election. There's also factual problems, one of them being that a lot of these statements in the indictment were not made behind a podium or not made to the media. They were made by Donald Trump and others behind the scenes to try to influence people. And so there's much less of a First Amendment concern there. But I think that's a really fascinating insight into the way they intend to defend this case.
