For the pbs newshour I am
William brangham.
Geoff: With that first court
appearance tomorrow, we hear
tonight about how trump's legal
team is planning his defense
from trump attorney John Lauro.
We spoke a short time ago.
They for being with us.
John: Good to be here.
Geoff: You have described to
this indictment as an attack on
free speech, on political
advocacy.
How do you defend that argument
when the indictment makes clear
that "The defendant had a right
like every American to speak
publicly about the election and
even to claim falsely there had
been outcome determinative
fraud."
The indictment does not center
on what Mr. Trump said or
believed, it centers on what he
did allegedly, in trying to
subvert the election.
John: Just the opposite.
It attacks his ability to
advocate for political position,
which is covered under the first
amendment.
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 legislature's weighing in.
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 --
geoff: Biden doj appointed the
special counsel because of the
conflict of interest and the
special counsel does not operate
within the day-to-day
supervision of the justice
department.
To the point about the
legislature, the legislature
qualified their electors by
mid-december.
According to the indictment, Mr.
Trump new by November 14, that
he had lost the election.
He was told that by hordes of
Republican -- it is spelled out
in the indictment, but make your
point.
John: Of course you can believe
the indictment or believe in the
American system of justice, or
you can fight an indictment and
prove otherwise.
Or at least put the government
to its burden of proof.
In his 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.
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 is a significant
issue.
What you had where the electors
initially qualified and changes
in the system.
What president trump asked for
at the end was Mike pence pause
the voting and allow this issue
to go back to the states so 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: The former vice president
said Donald Trump was advised by
a team of crackpot attorneys,
the phrase he used.
He said it was not 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
emerges as a major figure.
He provided, as is spelled out
in the indictment, notes that
provide the underpinnings of so
much of the evidence here.
How will you contend with that
evidence and potentially with
his testimony?
Will you accuse him of lying?
John: First of all, I have to
say the testimony in its
totality, but the bottom line is
Mr. Pentz was also surround --
surrounded by lawyers.
President was surrounded by
lawyers.
Some of those lawyers had some
disagreement about a
constitutional pathway.%
there is no doubt whatsoever
that Mr. Trump was advised by a
very reputable scholar, who gave
him a pathway with respect to
the constitutional options he
had.
Geoff: You're talking about John
Eastman who is an unnamed
co-conspirators are --
conspirator.
John: The other option was
option D, which was to pause the
vote.
If you remember, in the speech,
that is what president trump
asked for.
They may have been other options
discussed before that, but the
ultimate option that was asked
was to pause the vote.
And 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: Let's return to this
issue of free speech.
The special counsel, as he has
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.
If he stopped there, that would
have been within the round of
what was legal.
But allegedly he did not stop
there.
It is alleged he conspired,
three major conspiracies.
How do you refute that?
John: First of all, an
indictment is a charge where it
is returned by a grand jury.
We are not allowed to present
our case.
It is a one-sided presentation.
You can take the indictment as
gospel, which you may want to.
But the bottom line is that is
not how the system work.
We are entitled to our day in
court, to challenge the effort
-- the evidence, to present our
side of the story which is Mr.
Trump absolutely,
unconditionally believed he won
the election.
He took steps to advocate for
that position.
And that is all protected
speech.
Let me say, this 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: Do you believe you can
get a fair trial with this judge
who was randomly assigned, an
Obama appointee?
John: We expect to get a fair
proceeding.
Problem is in the district of
Columbia, it is a heavily
weighted democratic city.
I think it voted something like
95% for Mr. Biden.
We are taking a close look at
changing venue.
We would like to see a more
diverse, more balanced, a less
biased pool.
And certainly that will be an
issue we will raise with the
judge right away.
Geoff: You have suggested Mr.
Trump will try to seek a later
date for the trial.
How late?
John: We need to see all of the
evidence.
The special counsel, the Biden
administration has been
investigating this for over
three and a half years.
To force any defendant, any
American citizen, to trial in a
railroaded a sort of way is
antithetical to our system of
justice.
The defense is entitled to see
the evidence, to look at
discovery, to subpoena documents
and witnesses.
This is a massive case.
This trial could last 6, 8, 9
months.
At a minimum, 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 haydn signed 60 lawyers and
investigators to this case.
We don't have a team of that
magnitude and it will take time
to look through the evidence.
Geoff: On that point, Mr. Trump
is facing three indictments in
three different jurisdictions,
potentially four depending on
what happens in Georgia this
month.
It is a demanding workload.
It is an insanely busy schedule.
.
How is your team going to manage
all of that?
How will you choreograph that?
John: We are certainly up to the
challenge.
The bottom line is that all of
these lawsuits could attract
from the American people want to
hear about, which are the
important issues facing the
country.
Rather than relitigating the
2020 campaign, which this
indictment does.
It is a terrible distraction.
It is 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 is 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
in a scandal which is enveloping
his presidency now.
We are in uncharted
constitutional territory.
We have never seen anything like
this.
But Mr. Trump is entitled to his
day in court like every other
American, and he will get a very
vigorous defense consistent with
professional ethics and it is a
defense that will be successful.
Geoff: There is another
significant figure who is
described in this indictment
beyond the former vice
president, former white house
chief of staff mark meadows, who
is not characterized as a
co-conspirator.
Can this indictment or that
suggests to somebody has
cooperated with the special
counsel, jack Smith.
How do you see it?
Do think meadows cooperated?
John: Cooperation is an
interesting word.
It often means you go in and
talk to a prosecutor.
That is sometimes termed
cooperation.
In the course of a -- of talking
to a prosecutor, you can say
many favorable things about the
defense.
We would welcome all of the
information from Mr. Meadows and
we will take a look at that.
That simply because someone is
"Cooperating" does not mean that
they are simply mouthing the
words of a prosecutorial
narrative.
I need to be clear.
This is simply an indictment,
which is an allegation.
It does not mean the government
has this level of proof.
We will get our day in court and
attack every sentence in that
affidavit, and we will prevail
at the end of the trial.
Geoff: You think the special
counsel will include things in
this indictment that he could
not prove?
John: I have been practicing law
for 40 years.
As a prosecutor and a defense
lawyer.
And they are certainly things in
every single indictment that
never get proven.
Believe it or not, after trial,
defendants get acquitted.
In this case, president trump
will get acquitted.
Geoff: Is there any universe in
which your client would accept a
plea deal?
John: No.
Absolutely not.
In 2016, he ran as a
presidential candidate that
would not quit.
That would fight for the rights
of the American people.
He is doing that in connection
with this case.
I'm not just representing the
president of the United States
in this case, and representing
every American that wants to
speak freely, that wants to
raise his or her voice, that
wants to advocate for a
political position.
This is an instance where,
unfortunately, that kind of free
speech is under attack.
It is under attack in
universities, in school boards,
it is 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 are going to get
indicted and prosecuted, and
that is plain wrong.
Geoff: The attorney for the
former president Donald Trump.
Thank you for your time.