i would say it will be may, that would be the request. but we ll find out what the request is. the defense is fighting this. but by the time this really comes up, and by the way, i don t think that caplan is going to move the e. jean carroll case, and that s going to be a really rough one for trump. but he doesn t have to be there. . but in any event, by then things will have moved with the mar-a-lago case, i think. it will be that kind of free birth for this one. you think that by then, the mar-a-lago has already slipped off? i guess the question is, okay, using we should do this, it s important that they should be tried. i think it s important for all trump parties to be tried. then it s a question where it comes to how much they can delay and how much can they delay it? is it the circuit, the supreme court, if they expedite the
peers in the venue where the crime was committed. totally. people forget that part, it s very important. and all you need, of course, it 12 poorest persons good into true. it is a matter of 98 voted against him. i don t think you can argue for a venue change because people voted he will argue. that he will. but so let s say, you guys seem to be in agreement, this is the one that is built to go first. okay. let s stipulate that. what s a reasonable, catherine, do you think a reasonable time for it? this is interesting. we re saying this one should go first. i wonder if judge cannon will agree to that, because she has this date in may. but i would say if judge cannon agrees, it s in may. it s enough. time use the may trial great. regulates down march, and if cannon were to defer there s no way in the world this case if it starts in april will be over by may.
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
mounted in any criminal case. if it goes to trial. if the defendant doesn t plead that must be mounted. that is the way the whole system works. and one of the defense is clearly that trump s team is previewing. that they were going to argue in court. a freedom of speech or defense. here is how the defense played out this morning. it is the first time a sitting president is attacking a political opponent on first amendment grounds. and basically making it criminal to state your position. to engage gotta give you a timeout on that. when the indictment specifically says that the president has a first amendment right to. speak he even has a first amendment right to lie. absolutely. this indictment is criminalizing conduct not speech. it s criminalizing speech. why the randomly incised in
punishment. nbc news justice reporter ryan reilly has been just covering the january 6th trial since they got into action. other of the upcoming, sedition hunters, haugen your sixth roast it is a fantastic piece of work. and ryan joins me now. ryan, how would you describe judge chutkan? both a reputation, and what you ve seen in person. it s been really interesting to see how she s handled these cases overall. she isn t always sentenced people to the government request. she has done a pretty frequently. there are a number of cases are g undercutting. that is one of particularly young defended. let s she said that because of the age, there was what she would factor. and she s basically said that the certainty of punishment is very important. the studies kind of bear that out. a couple of these cases where prosecutors have said that home detention was fine here, she said, no there needs to be a little bit of skin in the game.