Donald Trump’s lawyer, John Lauro, made the case for his client’s innocence on Sunday talk shows. Legal experts said his points about the First Amendment and “technical violations” of the Constitution sounded more like political arguments than legal ones.
And in the 2012 case, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that when false claims are made to secure"valuable considerations," which Kennedy defined to include a"fraud," it is"well established that the government may restrict speech without affronting the First Amendment."
Healy added that the First Amendment could have come into play had the indictment included an additional charge — one related to inciting the crowd to storm the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. If that charge had been brought, then the 1969 case"would require the government to prove that Trump’s speech was intended to, and likely to, produce imminent unlawful conduct," Healy said.
"What President Trump did not do is direct Vice President Pence to do anything. He asked him in an aspirational way. Asking is covered by the First Amendment.""‘Aspirational’ is not a defense to criminal conduct," said Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who is now president of West Coast Trial Lawyers."Attempting to commit a crime is a crime."
"Requesting that someone violate the law is not protected by the First Amendment," he said."If I ask you to perjure yourself in a trial, or if I ask if you would accept a payment to commit a murder for me, the First Amendment does not shield me from criminal liability for those ‘aspirational’ questions."The word choice of"technical violation" flummoxed the experts.
Deutschland Neuesten Nachrichten, Deutschland Schlagzeilen
Similar News:Sie können auch ähnliche Nachrichten wie diese lesen, die wir aus anderen Nachrichtenquellen gesammelt haben.
Barr says Trump prosecution is 'legitimate case' and doesn't 'run afoul of the First Amendment'Former Attorney General WIlliam Barr dismissed the argument that the election interference case against former President Donald Trump is not valid because his statements were protected by the First Amendment.
Weiterlesen »
Trump rejects Jack Smith's protective order as 'overbroad,' violation of First AmendmentFormer President Donald Trump's attorneys oppose special counsel Jack Smith's proposal for a protective order in the case related to the 2020 election, claiming it is 'overbroad' and violates the First Amendment.
Weiterlesen »
Trump Lawyers Argue Against Broad Protective Order in Election Conspiracy CaseDonald Trump's legal team has raised concerns about the proposed protective order in the election conspiracy case, stating that it is too broad and would infringe upon his First Amendment rights.
Weiterlesen »
Trump lawyers criticize proposed rules on evidence sharingDonald Trump’s legal team told a judge overseeing the election conspiracy case against him that prosecutors’ proposed protective order aimed at preventing the public disclosure of evidence is too broad.
Weiterlesen »
What happened this week and what's next in Trump legal world | CNN PoliticsDonald Trump’s legal schedule is getting fuller by the day as the political season heats up, with the former president facing multiple criminal charges with more possibly on the way.
Weiterlesen »
Could Gov. Tate Reeves benefit again from Trump legal woes?Analysis: It appears Gov. Tate Reeves is trying to take advantage of the new Trump indictment to get GOP voters to the polls this November. If history is any indication, it could be a good strategy.
Weiterlesen »