fraudster asking a victim or attempted victim whether or not they d like to invest in a fraudulent investment. the mere fact that it s a question does not transform that into first amendment protected speech. it s very well settled by the courts that lots of crimes involve talking to people. the mere fact that you re doing that doesn t mean that you re entitled to first amendment protection. yeah, and the former attorney general bill barr undermined that first amendment case defense. he told cnn trump knew he lost the election. we ve heard that from other sources. i heard that from sources at the time covering the end of that administration. as we continue to hear from more former allies and potential witnesses in this trial, we re seeing trump intensify his attacks. special counsel jack smith warned that he wants a protective order to limit what trump and his defense team can talk about in all of this. it was in light of this threat
the right to comment on that an act politically. in a criminal case they would have to show that all the speech was not entitled to first amendment protection. of course, reminder, it is not about what donald trump said as jack smith laid out in the indictment. it is what he did. trump s lawyer also objected to the possibility of a trial during the 2024 election cycle. suggested the justice department was moving too quickly. the biden justice department has had three years to investigate this, to take president trump to trial in 90 days, of course is absurd. the question is why do they want to do that, if you want to see justice then you need to offer mister president president frump, an opportunity to get a hold of all the evidence and understand with the facts are. meanwhile, the new york times notes how former vice president mike pence has gone from trump s right-hand man to potential star witness and not political rival. this afternoon, pence responded
a criminal, case that had to show that was not entitled to first amendment protection. we re not talking about speech. there really are all kinds of conduct that might be reprehensible, that, morally wrong. even insidious. it s particularly true with regards to speech. because speech is protected by the first amendment. and importantly. so this is not one of those cases. in fact, as she pointed, out none other than jack smith himself makes that point on page two of the indictment. quote, the defendant had a right like every american, to speak publicly about the election and even to claim, falsely, that there had been outcome determinative fraud during the election and that he won. and one of the things, really indictment today, that it does so well is, smith and the lawyers that wrote this, really seek to clearly delineate when things move from protected speech, political advocacy, hardball politics, to a criminal conspiracy as laid out in the fact contained in the indictment. noth
as bill barr said if trump want to go down that road and say it s a counsel defense or i have first amendment protection, he s got to testify and take the stand and that s walking into a perjury trap. i think jack smith has the former president into a bit of a trick bag here. yeah, no question trump s best defense would require him to be on the stand. we know how that s gone in the past. let s talk about trump s calender is obviously filling up quickly, and we should never lose sight of the fact all these legal proceedings come in the backdrop of the campaign as i m sure he s going to be moving rally site to rally site next year. what s your best sequencing of these trials? we know about the one in new york. we can only speculate about the one in georgia. we have the two federal cases, classified documents and now this one on attempts to overturn the election. what do you think that counter is going to look like? in a recent interview alvin
conduct, not speech. no. it s criminalizing speech for this reason. what the president saw in the 2020 election is all these irregularities going on, affidavits, examples of when the rules were changed in the middle of the game. he had every right to comment on that. in a criminal case, what he would have to show is all that speech was not entitled to first amendment protection. i want to bring in ken dilanian. garrett haake is following the case from d.c. carol lamb, a former federal prosecutor and andrew weissmann was a senior member of the mueller probe. both carol and andrew are msnbc legal analysts. ken, give us an example of what we ve been able to glean from this indictment and how it sets the stage for tomorrow s indictment. reporter: chris, in many ways it s an incredibly detailed, thorough narrative. but in other ways it s quite a narrowly focused legal case when