Trump team's First Amendment argument is 'so weak' in Georgia election interference case

WITH US NOW TO TALK A LITTLE MORE ABOUT THIS, WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK IN AND LISTEN IN JUST A MINUTE. I WANT TO GET THE CONTEXT OF WHAT IS HAPPENING. HAPPENING. MELISSA, BARBARA R MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST. LISA, TAKE US WHAT TO -- UP TO SPEED ON WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THIS ALANNA COURTROOM. >> TO ZOOM OUT A LITTLE BIT JON SCOTT McAFEE IS HEARING AND NUMBER OF MOTIONS TO DISMISS PORTIONS OR ALL OF THE INDICTMENT AGAINST FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP AND ONE OF HIS CO-DEFENDANTS, THE CHAIR OF THE GEORGIA REPUBLICAN PARTY AND PARTICIPATED IN THE CONVENING OF WHAT WE COMMONLY CALL THE FAKE ELECTORS WHO TRY TO SUBMIT THEIR VOTES TO CONGRESS AND THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES IN SERVICE OF GETTING PRESIDENT TRUMP RE- ELECTED IN EARLY 2021. WE'VE ALREADY HEARD ARGUMENT THIS MORNING ON FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP'S MOTION THAT ALL OF THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST HIM IN THE INDICTMENT BASICALLY REDUCED TO CHARGES AGAINST CORE POLITICAL SPEECH. EVEN WHERE THE CRIMES ARE DEFINED MORE BROADLY IN TERMS OF FOR EXAMPLE, CONSPIRACIES TO COMMIT FORGERIES OR TO MAKE FALSE STATEMENTS. THAT THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST HIM SPECIFICALLY ARE ABOUT SPEECH ACTS AND THEREFORE UNMISSABLE. HAVING LISTENED TO THAT ARGUMENT, HIS ARGUMENT WAS THAT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S REPRESENTATIVE POINTED OUT, SOMEWHAT CIRCULAR. SPEECH IS PROTECTED BECAUSE SPEECH IS PROTECTED. TAKEN TO ITS LOGICAL CONCLUSION, SOME OF WHAT HE HAD TO SAY WHAT PROHIBIT WHAT BOB AND MELISSA KNOW OUR COMMON EVERYDAY PROSECUTIONS IN THIS COUNTRY UNDER STATUTES THAT PROHIBIT FALSE STATEMENTS TO GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS LIKE CONGRESS AND THE FBI INDEED. SOME FOLKS IN FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP'S WORLD HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFULLY PROSECUTED UNDER THOSE CHARGES. WHAT WE ARE HEARING NOW IS ARGUMENT ON A MOTION MADE BY DAVID SHAFER. AMONG OTHER THINGS, HE IS SAYING HE CANNOT BE CHARGED WITH IMPERSONATING A PUBLIC OFFICER UNDER GEORGIA LAW BECAUSE RESIDENTIAL ELECTORS DO NOT CONSTITUTE PUBLIC OFFICERS AS DEFINED. THAT IS WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW. I TELL YOU I THINK CRAIG GUILLEN HAS AN INTERESTING ARGUMENT. IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTOR WOULD CONSTITUTE A PUBLIC OFFICER. A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTOR COMES INTO OUR LIVES ONCE EVERY FOUR YEARS. THEY ALSO LACK SOME OF THE HALLMARKS WE ASSOCIATE WITH THOSE COMMONLY SEEN AS PUBLIC OFFICERS. THAT IS WHAT JUDGE SCOTT McAFEE IS ENTERTAINING RIGHT NOW, JOSE. >> WHAT ARE YOUR BIGGEST TAKEAWAYS? >> AS MENTIONED, ONE OF THE KEY THINGS IS WHAT IS A PUBLIC OFFICER AS MENTIONED IN THE INDICTMENT? IF THE ELECT WARS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE VARIOUS DEFINITIONS THAT WE SEEK IN THE CODE OF WHAT A PUBLIC OFFICER IS, DOES THAT MEAN HE CANNOT BE CHARGED WITH IMPERSONATING ONE AS LISTED IN THE INDICTMENT? I SUSPECT THE STATE WILL COME WITH A RESPONSE THAT LISTS HOW THE ELECTOR IS IMPACTED PUBLIC OFFICER. MAYBE THERE IS A PORTION OF THE STATUE THAT IS NOT MENTIONED OR MENTIONED A CASE LAW THAT WOULD GIVE THEM THE AUTHORITY TO CHARGE SOMEONE WITH THIS CRIME. IT'S IS A VERY NUANCED ARGUMENT AND I WILL BE INTERESTED TO SEE HOW THE STATE RESPONSE. >> BARBARA, GIVE US IF YOU WOULD A BROADER CONTEXT OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS HEARING AND THE POSSIBLE OUTCOMES FROM THIS HEARING. >> THIS IS A FAIRLY ROUTINE STAGE IN MOST CASES. DEFENDANTS TRY TO DISMISS EITHER SOME OR ALL OF THE COUNTS AGAINST THEM ON LEGAL GROUNDS. IF SUCCESSFUL, THAT WOULD END THE CASE AND PREVENT THESE CHARGES FROM GOING BEFORE A JURY. IN SOME CASES IT IS FAIRLY RARE DEFENDANTS ARE SUCCESSFUL IN KNOCKING OUT SOME OF THE COUNTS. WE ACTUALLY SAW THAT EARLIER THIS MONTH WHERE SOME OF THE COUNTS ABOUT SOLICITING PUBLIC OFFICIALS TO VIOLATE THEIR OATH OF OFFICE WERE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM WITH SPECIFIC SPECIFICITY. THAT IS THE GOAL, TO KNOCK OUT THE CLAIMS BEFORE THEY GO TO TRIAL. WITH REGARDS TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT ARGUMENT, I WILL BE SURPRISED IF IT IS SUCCESSFUL. I THINK IT IS MORE LIKELY TO BE APPEALING TO THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION THAN A GENUINE EXPECTATION THAT THE COUNTS WILL BE DISMISSED ON THAT BASIS. AS LISA SAID, THERE ARE PLENTY OF CRIMINAL STATUTES THAT DO IMPINGE UPON THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH, BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT. I THINK THERE IS A, MISCONCEPTION AMONG THE PUBLIC THAT WE CAN SAY ANYTHING WE WANT TO SAY. OF COURSE THAT IS NOT RIGHT. THERE IS A COMPELLING GOVERNMENTAL INTEREST AND A LIMIT NARROWLY TAILORED TO ACHIEVE THAT INTEREST THAT PASSES CONSTITUTIONAL MUSTER. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE CRIMES THAT PROHIBIT MAKING THREATS OR COMMUNICATING FRAUD OR LYING TO GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS OR PARTICIPATING IN A CONSPIRACY WHICH REQUIRES SPEECH. ALL OF THOSE THINGS REQUIRE SPEECH, BUT ARE STILL

Channel: MSNBC

Views: 159,352

Keywords: José Díaz-Balart, MSNBC, NBC News, nbc, news, news coverage, breaking news, us news, world news, politics, current events, top stories, pop culture, business, health, political news, msnbc live, Donald Trump, Trump, President Trump, Trump election interference case, Trump news

Id: gy8Syi5HPmM

Length: 6min 8sec (368 seconds)

Published: Thu Mar 28 2024