Trump attorney blasts indictment as 'attack on free speech' – PBS NewsHour

Double your support for intelligent, in-depth, trustworthy journalism.
Geoff Bennett Geoff Bennett
Stephanie Kotuby Stephanie Kotuby
Matt Loffman Matt Loffman
Tess Conciatori Tess Conciatori
Leave your feedback
Former President Donald Trump’s third indictment includes the most serious charges against him. The counts include conspiracy to defraud the United States and obstruction of an official proceeding for Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election. John Lauro is a defense attorney representing the former president. He joined Geoff Bennett to discuss the indictment.
Geoff Bennett:
With that first court appearance tomorrow, we hear tonight about how Trump’s legal team is planning his defense from Trump attorney Josh Lauro.
We spoke a short time ago.
Josh Lauro, thank you for being with us.
Josh Lauro, Attorney For Former President Donald Trump:
Good to be here.
Geoff Bennett:
You have described this indictment as an attack on free speech, on political advocacy.
How do you defend that argument, when the indictment makes clear that — quote — “the defendant,” in this case, Donald Trump, “had a right, like every American, to speak publicly about the election and even to claim falsely that there had been outcome-determinative fraud”?
So the indictment does not center on what Mr. Trump said or even believed. It centers on what he did, allegedly, in trying to subvert the election.
Josh Lauro:
No, just the opposite.
It attacks his ability to advocate for a political position, which is covered under the First Amendment. So what we saw after the 2020 election were a number of discrepancies, affidavits, sworn testimony from around the country as to irregularities in the election process.
We also saw instances where, in the middle of an election cycle, the rules changed without the state legislatures weighing in. So, under those circumstances, President Trump was entitled to advocate for a position, whether that meant going back to the state legislatures, whether it meant engaging in court activity or fighting in court or dealing with the issue from a political standpoint.
All of that is protected speech. This is the first time in the history of the United States where an existing administration, the Biden administration, is criminalizing and indicting and going after a political opponent who previously occupied the office of presidency and is now a political opponent.
This is an event that…
(Crosstalk)
Geoff Bennett:
Well, if I may, the Biden DOJ appointed a special counsel because of the conflict of interests.
Josh Lauro:
No, but…
Geoff Bennett:
And the special counsel does not operate within the day-to-day supervision of the Justice Department.
Josh Lauro:
No, if you look under the law…
(Crosstalk)
Geoff Bennett:
And to the point about the legislatures, the legislatures had already qualified their electors by mid-December, December 14.
Josh Lauro:
No.
Geoff Bennett:
And, according to the indictment, Mr. Trump knew by November 14 that he had lost the election. He was told that by hordes of Republican…
(Crosstalk)
Josh Lauro:
No, that’s simply not true.
Geoff Bennett:
It’s spelled out in the indictment. But make your point.
Josh Lauro:
Well, of course, you can either believe the indictment or believe in the American system of justice, where you can fight an indictment and prove otherwise, or at least put the government to its burden of proof.
But in terms of a special counsel, the special counsel reports to Merrick Garland. Merrick Garland has the ultimate determination as to whether or not to bring an indictment. Merrick Garland is a member of the Biden administration. So, this indictment is by the Biden administration, not by some special counsel who has no reporting ability to the Biden administration.
In terms of the qualification of electors, that’s a very, very significant issue, because what you had were the electors initially qualified, and then changes in the system. And what President Trump asked for at the very end was, Mike Pence, pause the voting and allow this issue to go back to the states, so that the state legislatures could ultimately decide on the qualification of the electors.
That was a constitutional pathway that was provided for and identified by a constitutional scholar. And Mr. Trump followed that advice, which he was entitled to do.
Geoff Bennett:
The former vice president today said that Donald Trump was advised by a team of crackpot attorneys — that was the phrase that he used — and he said it wasn’t just about pausing the vote, that it was about rejecting votes, and that would have sent the entire system into chaos.
We know from the indictment that the former Vice President Mike Pence emerges as a major figure. He provided, as is spelled out in the indictment, contemporaneous notes that provide the underpinnings of so much of the evidence here.
How will you contend with his — with that evidence, and potentially with his testimony? Will you accuse him of lying?
Josh Lauro:
Well, first of all, I have to see the testimony in its totality.
But the bottom line is that Mr. Pence was also surrounded by lawyers. President Trump was surrounded by lawyers. Some of those lawyers had some disagreement about a constitutional pathway. But there’s no doubt whatsoever that Mr. Trump was advised by a very reputable scholar who gave him a pathway with respect to the constitutional options that he had. And Trump selected one of those options.
Geoff Bennett:
You’re talking about John Eastman, who is an unnamed co-conspirator in the case.
Josh Lauro:
And the one option — the one option was option D, which was to simply pause the vote, ultimately.
And, if you remember, in the Ellipse speech, that’s exactly what President Trump asked for. Now, there may have been other options discussed before that, but the ultimate option that was asked is to pause the vote.
And you have really what we often have in the United States, which is a constitutional debate about issues, but those constitutional debates are never criminalized, except in the Biden administration.
Geoff Bennett:
Well, let’s return, if we can, to this issue of free speech, because the special counsel, as he’s laid out this indictment, is saying that Donald Trump could have said, “I won the election, it was rigged, there was fraud, Joe Biden did not win,” that, if he had stopped there, that would have been within the realm of what was legal.
But, allegedly, he did not stop there. It’s alleged that he conspired, three major conspiracies. How do you refute that?
Josh Lauro:
Well, first of all, an indictment is a — is a charge where it’s returned by a grand jury, and we’re not allowed to present our case.
So, it’s a one-sided presentation. You can take the indictment as gospel, which you may want to. But the bottom line is, that’s not how the system works. We’re entitled to our day in court. We’re entitled to challenge the evidence. We’re entitled to present our side of the story, which is, Mr. Trump, absolutely, unconditionally believed that he won the election.
He took steps to advocate for that position. And that’s all protected speech. Let me say, this sort of situation has never occurred in the history of the United States, where a presidential election has been criminalized because of the free speech rights exercised by a sitting president.
Geoff Bennett:
Do you believe that you can get a fair trial with this judge, who was randomly assigned, an Obama appointee, Tanya Chutkan?
Josh Lauro:
We expect to get a fair proceeding.
The problem is, in the District of Columbia, as you know, it’s a heavily weighted Democratic city. I think it voted something like 95 percent for Mr. Biden. So we’re taking a close look at changing venue. We’d like to see a more diverse, a more balanced, a less biased jury pool.
And, certainly, that’s going to be an issue we’re going to race with the judge right away.
Geoff Bennett:
You have suggested that Mr. Trump will try to seek a later date for this trial. How late?
Josh Lauro:
Well, we need to see all the evidence.
The special counsel, the Biden administration has been investigating this for over three-and-a-half years. And to force any defendant, any American citizen to trial in a railroaded sort of way is really antithetical to our system of justice.
So, the defense is entitled to see the evidence, to look at discovery, to subpoena documents and witnesses. And this is a massive case. This trial could last six, eight, nine months. We don’t know.
But, at a minimum, every — every defense team is entitled to look at the evidence. And we expect to do that. We will have a better idea of when we can be ready once we look at that evidence. The Biden administration assigned 60 lawyers and investigators to this case. We don’t — we don’t have a team of that magnitude. And it’s going to take some time to look through the evidence.
Geoff Bennett:
On that point, Mr. Trump is facing three indictments now in three different jurisdictions, potentially four, depending on what happens in Fulton County, Georgia, later this month.
It’s a demanding workload. It’s an insanely busy schedule. How is your team going to manage all of that, his legal team? How will you choreograph that?
Josh Lauro:
Well, we’re certainly up to the challenge.
But the bottom line is that all of these lawsuits just detract from what the American people want to hear about, which are the really important issues facing the country, rather than relitigating the 2020 campaign, which this indictment does.
So it’s a terrible distraction. It’s being brought in the middle of an election cycle by a political opponent. And the American people can make their own judgment as to whether or not that’s right. This case could be brought the day after Election Day. And yet we have a hurry-up offense to bring it almost immediately after very damaging statements were made about President Biden and a scandal which is enveloping his presidency right now.
So, we’re in uncharted constitutional territory. We have never seen anything like this. But Mr. — Mr. Trump, President Trump, is entitled to his day in court, like every other American, and he’s going to get a very vigorous defense, consistent with professional ethics, and it’s a defense that’s going to be successful.
Geoff Bennett:
There’s another significant figure who’s described in this indictment beyond the former Vice President Mike Pence. That’s former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, who’s not characterized as a co-conspirator in this indictment.
And that suggests to some that he has cooperated with the special counsel, Jack Smith. How do you see it? Do you think Mark Meadows cooperated?
Josh Lauro:
Well, cooperation is an interesting word. It often means that you go in and talk to a prosecutor.
And that’s sometimes termed cooperation. But in the course of talking to a prosecutor, you can say many, many favorable things about the defense. So, we would welcome all the information from Mr. Meadows, and we’re going to take a look at that. But simply because someone is — quote — “cooperating” doesn’t mean that they’re simply mouthing the words of a prosecutorial narrative.
I need to be very clear. This is simply an indictment, which is an allegation.It doesn’t mean that the government has this level of proof. And we’re going to get our day in court. We’re going to attack every single sentence in that affidavit, and we’re going to prevail at the end of the trial.
Geoff Bennett:
You think the special counsel would include things in this indictment that he could not prove?
Josh Lauro:
Well, let me put it this way.
I have been practicing law for 40 years, OK, and as a prosecutor and a defense lawyer, and there are certainly things in every single indictment that never get proven. And, believe it or not, after trial, defendants get acquitted. And, in this case, President Trump will get acquitted.
Geoff Bennett:
Is there any universe in which your client, the former president, would accept a plea deal?
Josh Lauro:
No, absolutely not.
In 2016, he ran as a as a presidential candidate that wouldn’t quit, that would fight for the rights of the American people. He is — he is doing that in connection with this case. I’m not just representing the president of the United States in this case. I’m representing every American that wants to speak freely, that wants to raise his voice or her voice, that wants to advocate for a political position.
And this is an instance where, unfortunately, that kind of free speech is under attack. It’s under attack in universities. It’s under attack in school boards. It’s under attack on social media. This is the ultimate form of censorship. If you don’t go along with what the government believes happened in 2020, you’re going to get indicted and prosecuted, and that’s just plain wrong.
Geoff Bennett:
Josh Lauro is an attorney for the former President Donald Trump.
Thanks for your time this evening. We appreciate it.
Josh Lauro:
Thank you.
Watch the Full Episode
Aug 02
By William Brangham, Kyle Midura
Aug 02
By Geoff Bennett, Ali Schmitz
Aug 02
By Michael Kunzelman, Associated Press
Aug 01
By Laura Barrón-López, Matt Loffman, Ali Schmitz
Aug 01
By Associated Press
Geoff Bennett Geoff Bennett
Geoff Bennett serves as co-anchor of PBS NewsHour. He also serves as an NBC News and MSNBC political contributor.
Stephanie Kotuby Stephanie Kotuby
Senior Editorial Producer
Matt Loffman Matt Loffman
Matt Loffman is the PBS NewsHour’s Deputy Senior Politics Producer
Tess Conciatori Tess Conciatori
Tess Conciatori is a politics production assistant at PBS NewsHour.
Support Provided By: Learn more
Support PBS NewsHour:
Subscribe to Here’s the Deal, our politics newsletter for analysis you won’t find anywhere else.
Thank you. Please check your inbox to confirm.
© 1996 – 2023 NewsHour Productions LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Sections
About
Stay Connected
Subscribe to ‘Here’s the Deal,’ our politics newsletter
Thank you. Please check your inbox to confirm.
Learn more about Friends of the NewsHour.
Support for NewsHour Provided By

source