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
effort to stay in power, to steal the election, which culminated in the january six attempted coup, and now sets up, in the words of legal scholar rick hassan, the most important case in our nation s history. we catherine is professor of law in political science. you can read that piece on the importance of the trial in slate.com. danya perry is a former deputy attorney general, yesterday s office southern district of new york, and they both join me now. rick, that headline really grabbed me after day, and i really like the piece. why do you think this is the most important trial in the nation s history? unlike the other claims against trump so classified documents in the hush money, they don t go to our democracy itself. and might be terrible to lead a national secret, but it s not the same thing as trying to subvert an election. and really, as i argue in the piece, trump has not been held
i think that s a really weak argument. besides the fact that there s good reason to believe that he didn t actually think that he won the election. imagine if he said to mike pence, i m going to break your legs and hurt your family if you don t throw out the electoral votes from wisconsin, even if trump believed that he had won the election, that would still be a crime. he d be using words that wouldn t be protected by the four first amendment. so it s besides the point what he secretly believed or publicly says about whether the election was stolen. it doesn t give him the right to engage in criminal conduct. that s what this indictment alleges. what do you think, danya? i completely agree with rick. that s not a defense. first of all, there is, of course, reams of evidence that show that everyone critical around him was saying there was no fraud, and the former president himself said things
that is actionable, and we ll see what a jury says, but perhaps we ll actually and in criminal conviction. let s talk about criminal intent, one of the most important aspects of this, and it clear that i think there s three prongs to the defense. criminalizing speech in front of conduct, he was relying on his lawyer s advice. and then this third one having to do with intent. i ll read here today from his lawyer saying i would like them to try to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that donald trump believed that these allegations were false. basically, rick, the notion that he is so, that he is essentially clinically deluded about the reality of the matter, despite the repeated evidence presented to him time and time again, said in the indictment. that clinical delusion means he is incapable of forming criminal intent. what do you think about that?