Category
📺
TVTranscript
00:00 This weekend, the judge rejected your request for three more days to consider the special
00:05 counsel's proposed rules for how to handle evidence.
00:08 The proposed protective order that would let Trump use some sensitive information, but
00:14 not take that information with him.
00:16 Will you agree to that?
00:18 Well, first of all, this protective order that's being suggested by the Biden administration
00:26 is an effort to keep from the press important, non-sensitive information that the Biden
00:32 administration has that may speak to the innocence of President Trump.
00:34 This isn't by the Biden administration.
00:36 This is by the special independent counsel.
00:39 And, no, no, here, for this reason, no.
00:42 The independent counsel, it's not independent, it's special counsel, has to get the approval
00:47 of Merrick Garland in order to go forward.
00:49 Joe Biden said in November 2022 that he wanted to see President Trump prosecuted and taken
00:56 out of this race.
00:57 So it is the Biden administration.
00:58 I'm just going to stop you because there's no evidence that Joe Biden is involved in
01:02 this.
01:03 And you're right, it's a special counsel.
01:04 Let's just stick to the question.
01:06 Do you believe that this is something that you'll agree to?
01:09 The point is that we will not agree to keeping information that's not sensitive from the
01:17 press.
01:18 The press and the American people in a campaign season have a right to know what the evidence
01:23 is in this case, provided that this evidence is not protected otherwise.
01:28 So we're going to oppose it, as we have.
01:30 But for whatever reason, these lawyers on the prosecution team want to keep that from
01:35 the press.
01:36 And I'm shocked, candidly, that the press -- some of it will, not all of it.
01:42 I'm shocked that the press isn't lined up objecting to this protective order, because
01:46 not only is President Trump being attacked for his First Amendment rights, now these
01:51 prosecutors are trying to infringe on the freedom of the press.
01:55 Let's stick to -- I appreciate you trying to stick up for us.
01:56 So that's the reality.
01:57 You asked me what's happening.
01:58 I'm telling you --
01:59 I appreciate you trying to stick up for us, but let's talk about the actual substance
02:03 of what they were trying to do in the filing, which was try to make the point not only that
02:08 they want to keep the discovery information, what the witnesses said, for the time being
02:14 quiet, but also he made pretty clear, the special counsel, that the idea that the former
02:22 president is calling him deranged and mentally ill is something that maybe shouldn't be happening.
02:30 So let me ask you, as his attorney in this criminal case, do you want your client to
02:36 stop speaking publicly like this, using terms like that?
02:41 This case was brought by -- this case was brought by the Biden administration in the
02:47 middle of a political campaign.
02:49 And with the realization that people are out there campaigning for office, I'm not involved
02:56 in the campaign.
02:57 I'm involved in representing Mr. Trump in a criminal proceeding.
02:59 Totally understand.
03:00 You're not his campaign manager.
03:01 You are his lawyer.
03:02 As his lawyer, would you want a client to say things like this about the special counsel?
03:09 One thing that we are going to do is fight this very, very unusual, outside-of-the-bounds
03:18 criminal prosecution of First Amendment rights vigorously in court.
03:22 My focus is on addressing the issues.
03:25 One of the issues that the Biden administration will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt
03:30 is that Donald Trump had corrupt intent, had criminal intent, when he protested the results
03:38 of the 2020 election.
03:39 That's core freedom of speech.
03:41 That's core political speech.
03:42 OK, let's talk about this.
03:43 You have talked about freedom of speech.
03:44 Which is protected under our Constitution.
03:45 You have talked about freedom of speech a lot.
03:47 I want you to listen to what Donald Trump's own former attorney general said about that
03:53 argument.
03:54 I really don't think that's a valid argument.
03:57 He can say whatever he wants.
03:59 He can even lie.
04:00 He can even tell people that the election was stolen when he knew better.
04:08 Free speech doesn't give you the right to engage in a fraudulent conspiracy.
04:14 Your response?
04:15 Well, first of all, there was no fraudulent conspiracy.
04:19 That's part of the reality of the defense.
04:22 What President Trump was entitled to do and what Mr. Barr misses, and I'm not sure he's
04:27 read all the cases, but when it comes to political speech, you can not only advocate for a position,
04:33 but you can take action.
04:34 You can petition.
04:35 You can ask even your vice president to pause the vote for a period of time in order to
04:41 allow the states to recertify.
04:42 But you can't break the law, which is what this indictment alleges.
04:44 It alleges that he caused actions like approving fake...
04:49 What was it that was fraudulent?
04:50 I'll tell you what the indictment says.
04:54 The indictment says that he attempted to cause actions like approving fake electors, opening
05:00 sham fraud investigations, and obstructing the certification of the election.
05:05 Whether he can prove that, that's going to happen in the trial.
05:08 I'm just saying what's in the indictment.
05:09 Yes, but let's...
05:10 Right, and let me take the first thing, the question about electors.
05:16 Alternate electors are used in every four-year cycles.
05:20 The Senate parliamentarian acknowledged to Vice President Pence that they always receive
05:24 protest, alternate electors.
05:27 None of those electors were counted.
05:30 Vice President Pence was completely aware of the nature of the protest.
05:34 They weren't counted because Mike Pence rejected the scheme.
05:38 That's why they weren't counted.
05:39 Absolutely, and that's how the...
05:41 Of course, and that's how the political process works.
05:43 But there was no defrauding.
05:44 No, it doesn't.
05:45 There was no trickery.
05:47 There was no deceit.
05:48 Because if Mike Pence had said yes, then that's exactly what would have happened.
05:52 No, because...
05:53 No, because thankfully with freedom of the press...
05:57 I don't want to go down...
05:58 You have to let me finish though, because...
06:00 No, but you asked me a question and I hope you can let me finish because the government
06:05 alleges deceit or trickery and all of this played out in the open.
06:11 It's all free speech.
06:12 There was a Supreme Court decision, Hammerschmidt, which is right on point, that says when you're
06:16 exercising free speech, you're not engaging in a fraud on the government.
06:22 That's what unfortunately most people don't understand in this context.
06:25 That's just one example of the actions.
06:27 It's very political.
06:28 That's just one example of the actions in this indictment.
06:30 Absolutely, but you're entitled.
06:32 And this is a long list that we've compiled from the indictment.
06:35 I mean, there are...
06:37 It's more than a dozen, not speech, actions that the former president allegedly took.
06:44 Like what?
06:45 Like what?
06:46 I mean, where do I even start?
06:47 Like what?
06:48 Tell me.
06:49 What actions?
06:50 He asked the Arizona speaker to interfere with ascertaining Arizona's electors.
06:52 The Justice Department...
06:53 Asking.
06:54 Asking a speech.
06:57 But any alleged...
06:58 Asking is speech.
06:59 But any alleged...
07:00 It's not action.
07:01 Any alleged, almost all alleged criminal activity has to do with using words and is speech.
07:07 No.
07:08 And that's...
07:09 Listen.
07:10 But you don't...
07:11 This is obviously the defense that you're going to use, and it will be fascinating to
07:12 see how it works out in a court of law.
07:14 I want to move on to another issue.
07:16 No, but you're...
07:17 No, no, I got to tell you though, but you make an interesting point because you're saying
07:22 that asking is action.
07:24 No, asking is aspirational.
07:26 Asking is not action.
07:27 It's core free speech.
07:29 The press should be defending free speech in this case.
07:32 Let's talk about something else that you have repeatedly said, and that is that the former
07:36 president ultimately asked his vice president only for a pause in the electoral count.
07:43 But it follows...
07:44 That was one of the things, ultimately.
07:45 Weeks.
07:46 The final ask, right.
07:47 The final ask in the ellipse speech was that, which was he, President Trump was following
07:53 the advice of his lawyer.
07:55 The word ultimately, I've heard you use many times.
07:58 The word ultimately is doing a lot of work in that sentence.
08:01 I know you're intentionally using the word ultimately because that point...
08:05 It's unusually ultimately because it's the truth.
08:08 I know.
08:09 You're right.
08:10 It is the truth because at that point he was asking for a pause, but it's only because...
08:13 And I'm entitled to advocate on behalf of a client.
08:15 It's only because for many, many, many other asks before that, what the former president
08:21 was asking Mike Pence to do was to completely stop it and reject it.
08:28 And that is the point that Mike Pence is making.
08:31 It got to the point where he said pause because Mike Pence says, "I'm not going to reject
08:36 it."
08:37 Can I respond?
08:38 Sure.
08:39 Okay.
08:40 Okay.
08:41 So what we have, and many people don't understand this, is a memo from John Eastman, an esteemed
08:46 constitutional scholar, laying out a number of scenarios.
08:50 Those scenarios were presented to Vice President Pence.
08:55 He considered them, and as a constitutional matter, he rejected them.
09:00 One of the last and the ultimate requests that President Trump made was to pause the
09:05 voting for 10 days to allow the states to recertify or certify or audit, and Mr. Pence
09:13 rejected that as well.
09:15 After that, there was a peaceful transition of power.
09:18 So that's how the constitutional works.
09:20 What happened on January 6th was not peaceful.
09:23 I want to ask you something about John Eastman because you talked a lot about how he's a
09:28 respected constitutional attorney.
09:30 The transfer of power was certainly peaceful.
09:35 Did you see what happened on January 6th?
09:37 Did that look peaceful to you?
09:38 And by the way, did you -- I'm not saying that that was in any way inappropriate, but
09:45 the ultimate power of the presidency was transferred to Mr. Biden.
09:49 I just want to quickly ask about John Eastman.
09:50 Yes, you do.
09:51 John Eastman said, according to this indictment, that he actually, even when he was talking
09:58 to the vice president's counsel, that he thought that his plan to reject the slate of electors
10:05 would be rejected by the Supreme Court.
10:08 Nine to zero.
10:10 He thought he was right.
10:12 And by the way, that proposal was not the ultimate one presented to Vice President Pence.
10:18 But what happens in the course of a constitutional discussion like this is, all legal theories
10:23 are discussed and analyzed.
10:25 And once again, what President Trump was doing is within the reality and the realm of free
10:30 speech.
10:31 He's asking his vice president, what about taking this course of action?
10:35 Ultimately, his vice president rejected all of the proposals that were made.
10:38 One quick question before I let you go about the trial.
10:39 But what's critical -- but you have to let me finish.
10:43 No, no, no, one quick response.
10:46 What President Trump did not do is direct Vice President Pence to do anything.
10:52 He asked him in an aspirational way.
10:55 Asking is covered by the First Amendment.