Like any American under indictment for attempting to overthrow the US government, former president Donald Trump is presumed innocent until proven otherwise in a court of law. He better enjoy that while it lasts, though, because even his own lawyer is making him sound super guilty.
Defense attorney John Lauro, who joined the ever-expanding Trump legal team in mid-July, appeared on five Sunday news shows to discuss the latest of three indictments. His notorious client pleaded not guilty last week to four charges related to the attempted overthrow of democracy: Conspiracy to Defraud the United States, Conspiracy to Obstruct an Official Proceeding, Obstruction of and Attempts to Obstruct an Official Proceeding, and Conspiracy Against Rights. To hear Lauro tell it, it’s not that Trump didn’t do any of that stuff, but that it’s all totally fine that he did.
In his various interviews, Lauro acknowledged and confirmed many of the facts contained in the indictment, such as the plot to submit fake electors and the pressure that Trump put on former vice president Mike Pence to reject the legitimately appointed electors. “Of course, and that’s how the political process works,” he said during an exchange on CNN with Dana Bash, who cut him off to emphatically say, “No, it doesn’t.”
Lauro spun Trump’s efforts to remain in office after he lost as “aspirational” (meaning unsuccessful, I guess) and questioned whether violating the Constitution should lead to criminal prosecution at all. “A technical violation of the Constitution is not a violation of criminal law,” he said.
Isn’t it, though? Technically, my law degree comes from the university of having watched too many “Law & Order” reruns, but I’m pretty sure the Constitution is not only a law, but the law—as in, the highest law in the land, the one with which all other laws have to comply, the one Trump himself swore an oath to uphold. And the word “technical” is meaningless in that sentence, as confirmed by Rep. Jamie Raskin, who chaired the House Select Committee on January 6 and also happens to be an expert on constitutional law.
“First of all, a technical violation of the Constitution is a violation of the Constitution,” Raskin said on “Meet the Press.” “The Constitution in six different places opposes insurrection and makes that a grievous constitutional offense.” Raskin went on to explain that criminal laws are designed to enforce the Constitution, and incidentally, Trump has been indicted under several of those.
Importantly, none of those four criminal charges concern the false statements Trump made about the results of the 2020 election, which he definitely lost. That’s apparently not going to stop Lauro from attempting a free-speech defense, though: “The defense is quite simple,” Lauro told Chuck Todd on “Meet the Press.” “President Trump believed in his heart of hearts that he had won that election, and as any American citizen, he had a right to speak out under the First Amendment.”
Setting aside that extremely questionable claim about what Trump truly believed in his “heart of hearts,” that’s cool, man! Special prosecutor Jack Smith agrees. See Page 2, Paragraph 3 of the indictment, which explains that Trump had a First Amendment right to make whatever garbage claims about the election results he wanted. He also was able to challenge the results lawfully through court cases, recounts, and audits. Unfortunately for Lauro, his client did not stop at simply running his mouth, which he seems to understand since he also attempted to argue that actions are actually just a different kind of speech.
In case the free speech defense fails, Lauro has another idea up his sleeve. “Everything that President Trump did was while he was in office,” Lauro told Todd. “As a [former] president, he is now immune from prosecution.” Funny, I do not recall ever reading that in the Constitution. Whether a sitting president can be prosecuted while in office seems to be an open question, but someone might need to remind Trump and his lawyer that he is a private citizen now because, for the last time, he lost.
As in the dozens of election challenges that Trump’s campaign lost in court, these arguments appear designed to appeal to Trump’s base, not to hold up in front of an actual judge. That may be why Lauro told the host of “Face the Nation” that he plans to apply for a change of venue to West Virginia, a state that is 93 percent white, largely supports Trump, and which Lauro described as “much more diverse” than DC.
(featured image: NBC)
