Former President Trump’s attorney John Lauro said he would not accept a plea deal in connection to the federal Jan. 6 case, in which the former president is charged with four federal counts related to alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
CBS host Major Garrett asked Lauro on “Face the Nation” if there was “any condition” under which Trump would accept a plea deal on the latest charges brought against him. Lauro told him there was no condition where Trump would.
When asked if he planned to file a motion to dismiss the case, Lauro said he “absolutely” will, but did not answer when he would file that.
“Hundred percent. Well, within the time permitted,” Lauro said. “This is what’s called a Swiss cheese indictment. It has so many holes that we’re going to be identifying and litigating a number of motions that we’re going to file on First Amendment grounds, on the fact that President Trump is immune as president from being prosecuted in this way.”
Lauro also said that cases similar to this case brought against Trump do not go to trial “before two or three years.” He also emphasized how he will be pushing to change the venue, saying West Virginia would be an “excellent venue to try this case.”
Lauro also noted that Trump’s comments, such as his stating that the judge overseeing his case was “unfair,” are made in the “context of a campaign.”
“Well, the problem with bringing a case like this in the middle of a campaign season is statements are going to be made in the context of a campaign,” he said. “We expect a fair and just trial in the District of Columbia. And — and my role — my role is simply to ensure that President Trump’s rights, just like every American’s rights, are protected every step of the way, and I’m going to do that.”
Trump pleaded not guilty to the latest charges in Washington, D.C., on Thursday.
Okay, great, I don’t have to worry about him getting off light because of a plea deal.
Not sure why they’d offer him one anyway.
“[The indictment] has so many holes that we’re going to be identifying and litigating a number of motions that we’re going to file on First Amendment grounds, on the fact that President Trump is immune as president from being prosecuted in this way.”
There are three clear “wrongs” in this single sentence.
If you think the US Justice Department is going to indict a former US president for federal crimes related to that former president’s attempting to overthrow an election that he lost, while he was still president, on any sort of shaky grounds, you are insane.
First Amendment protections of speech are limited, for good reason. If your speech is in support of a crime, the speech is a part of that crime, even if the speech all by itself is not criminal. Context is everything.
Just because someone is president, that does not mean that any actions that person takes while president are by definition legal, for all time. There is a US Justice Department policy to not indict a sitting president. This policy is arguably a good one, to avoid the US Justice Department from being able to hamstring an administration of its choosing, either on its own or due to political pressure from outside. The downside is that, as it stands, a sitting president can do whatever they want while in office, apparently up to and including overturning an election they lost. The standing policy depends on presidents acting in good faith and with decorum; that’s been shown to be off the table now. And this is not a law or a requirement. It is an internal Justice Department policy.
Anyway - even with that policy in effect, nothing about it suggests that a former president would not be indicted for actions they took while president. If that were the case, it would mean that any president, once in office, could commit any crime whatsoever, openly and in public, with total impunity forever. This is clearly ridiculous; the repercussions would essentially destroy the nation.
That Trump’s legal team is actually making this argument is insurrectionary. If they take this argument into court, and attempt to get the court to recognize it as a legal defense, I would argue that that action rises to the level of conspiracy to overthrow the government.
deleted by creator
