Says that the president has the First Amendment right to speech. Yes. Even the First Amendment right to lie. Absolutely. This indictment is criminalizing conduct not speech. Its criminalizing speech. Why the randomly incised judge is bad news for the defendant. The complicated calendar of republican front runner facing three criminal trials and congressman jamie raskin on jack smiths decision to charge civil rights law used to prosecute kkk violence. Check out detroit. Check out when all in starts, right now. Good in a few new york. Im chris hayes. For the third time in four months, donald trump will be arrested and arraigned tomorrow. And a federal courthouse in washington, d. C. Hes got to be getting used to it by now. He will stand for a federal magistrate judge. He will enter a plea as he has done in the last two cases. In this new Criminal Case laid out against him for attempting to steal the 2020 election. Tomorrow he will be returning to the scene of that crime, as laid out in t
Third arrest and arraignment, the easy answer for the ex president s defense. The indictment specifically says that the president has the First Amendment right to speech. He even has a First Amendment right to lie. Its right here, this indictment is causing conduct not speech. And then, why the randomly assigned judge is bad news for the defendant. The complicated calendar of a republican front runner facing three criminal trials. And congressman jamie raskin on jack smiths decision to charge vil ghts law used to prosecute kkk violence. Check out detroit, check out philadelphia, check out atlanta. Good evening from new york, im chris hayes. But the third time in four months, donald trump will be arrested and arraigned tomorrow at the federal courthouse in washington d. C. Has got to be getting used to it by now. He will stand before a Magistrate Judge and enter a plea. As hes done in the last two cases. In the new Criminal Case laid out against him or attempting to steal the 2020 elect
i think it s very carefully crafted and just to go to the point that you were just raising, in terms of this question of defense of, quote, unquote, free speech, one has to only look at the statute in the elements for approving a conspiracy to defraud the united states. the elements are simple. there has to be a scheme to commit something unlawful. there has to be criminal intent. and there has to be over act over to act in furtherance of the skin. so a bunch of people sitting around in a basement, state house, plotting to submit a false electoral slate, that s not a crime. doing anything in furtherance of it, and there s paragraph after paragraph, of the overt acts done in furtherance, is what takes us from something which could lie in the realm of first amendment speech to the realm of criminal conspiracy
slates scheme. it s all readily understandable. i think it s very carefully crafted and just to go to the point that you were just raising, in terms of this question of defense of, quote, unquote, free speech, one has to only look at the statute in the elements for approving a conspiracy to defraud the united states. the elements are simple. there has to be a scheme to commit something unlawful. there has to be criminal intent. and there has to be over act over to act in furtherance of the skin. so a bunch of people sitting around in a basement, state house, plotting to submit a