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
To that effect. but here exactly it s not. it s not a true defense. the question is not so much did he believe the election was truly stolen, but what act, further to your point, did he take, did he and his coconspirators take, regardless of his subjective state of mind? did he believe that these electors that submitted the certificates to congress, were they the true electors, or did they go to a basement somewhere and say they were in the state house. there are so many questions like that. an important point. not did he think it was stolen from him, but did the electors scheme, did they believe the electors were what they said they were, the rightful electors. and that, i think, is a tougher case to make. rick hasen, danya perry, thanks so much for your time. coming up, his investigation laid the foundation for upcoming court battle. congressman jamie raskin and
Around him was saying there was no fraud, and the former president himself said things to that effect. but here exactly it s not. it s not a true defense. the question is not so much did he believe the election was truly stolen, but what act, further to your point, did he take, did he and his coconspirators take, regardless of his subjective state of mind? did he believe that these electors that submitted the certificates to congress, were they the true electors, or did they go to a basement somewhere and say they were in the state house. there are so many questions like that. an important point. not did he think it was stolen from him, but did the electors scheme, did they believe the electors were what they said they were, the rightful electors. and that, i think, is a tougher case to make. rick hasen, danya perry, thanks so much for your ticoming u ountry hree trials an county around a presidential campaign we re gonna go down that path.