Believed that this allegations were false. that s gotten a lot of attention. most of it appropriately dismissive. even trump s former attorney general, bill barr, jeff beliefs defenses like that are nonsense. i ve come to believe that he knew while he had lost the election. there are not attacking his first amendment right. he can say whatever he wants. that does not protect you from entering into a conspiracy. we re looking at the tip of the iceberg on this. you think jack smith has more? oh yes, i would believe he has a lot more. let s bring back my panel. anthony coley, cynthia alksne, and olivia troye. let s start with a legal argument. this so-called free speech argument that trump is a lot to say whatever he wants and believe whatever he wants. trump s lawyers are saying check smith is criminalizing trump for saying the election was rigged. i want to give you a shot at the bucking that for us. walk us through why that is just nonsense? i think what happened was
And telegraphed his coming strategy. i would like them to try to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that donald trump believed that this allegations were false. that s gotten a lot of attention. most of it appropriately dismissive. even trump s former attorney general, bill barr, believes defenses like that are nonsense. i ve come to believe that he knew well he had lost the election. there are not attacking his first amendment right. he can say whatever he wants. that does not protect you from entering into a conspiracy. we re looking at the tip of the iceberg on this. you think jack smith has more? oh yes, i would believe he has a lot more. let s bring back my panel. anthony coley, cynthia alksne, and olivia troye. cynthia, let s start with a legal argument. this so-called free speech argument that trump is a lot to say whatever he wants and believe whatever he wants. trump s lawyers are saying jack smith is criminalizing trump for saying the election was
Could potentially even go after trump s enemies, not only provide a basis for him to end any ongoing prosecutions that might still be going after he might assume office. and, rick, let s talk about some of these big headlines from the latest trump indictment on these election subversion charges. what do you make of this argument from the trump legal team that he was just exercising his right to free speech in contesting the election results? yeah. i mean, i think the free speech argument is a canard. if he would have said to mike pence, vote for you know, throw out the votes from michigan, or i m going to break both of your legs, he d be using speech to do that, but everyone would see that as a potential crime. it doesn t matter that he s using words. it doesn t matter what he believes. so it s the same kind of thing with the claims that are going on here. he s not being prosecuted for his beliefs. he s not being prosecuted for exercising the right to free
i would like them to try to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that donald trump believed that these allegations were false. that s gotten a lot of attention. most of it appropriately dismissive. even trump s former attorney general, bill barr, believes defenses like that are nonsense. i ve come to believe that he knew well he had lost the election. they are not attacking his first amendment right. he can say whatever he wants. that does not protect you from entering into a conspiracy. we re looking at the tip of the iceberg on this. you think jack smith has more? oh yes, i would believe he has a lot more. let s bring back my panel. anthony coley, cynthia alksne, and olivia troye. cynthia alksne, let s start with a legal argument. this so-called free speech argument that trump is a lot to say whatever he wants and believe whatever he wants. trump s lawyers are saying jack smith is criminalizing trump for saying the election was rigged. i want to give you a shot at the debunk
The green room with the attorney general before the interview and then followed up afterwards. i have known him for a while. he is a pretty candid fellow. he is not pulling any punches here. i thought it was it was a great interview. it was insightful. i think we may see him again, at the trial perhaps. real quick before we have to go, your response to kind of that argument, the free speech argument? i understand it. it kind of goes to what kevin mccarthy said about hillary clinton and al gore. at some point they took the legal al gore took the legal pathway to go to the supreme court and when he lost, he conceded. and hillary clinton within 24 hours conceded to donald trump. the problem is, is even the day he is arraigned, donald trump is still pushing the fact that he won the election. and so he did not. and that s why he is going to court. yeah, they keep leaving out that the other two conceded. that s right. very interesting. david and ashley, thanks, guys.