Gaping Hole in Donald Trump's Defense Identified

A key part of Donald Trump's legal defense in his federal criminal trial over claims he broke the law attempting to overturn the 2020 presidential election is "like a dog chasing its tail," according to an ex-attorney. She added that the former president's lawyers were "pursuing the same lies" he has been charged with.

The claim was made by Joyce Vance, formerly the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama. She was appearing on the "Stay Tuned with Preet" legal podcast, hosted by ex-Southern District of New York attorney Preet Bharara. A civil-rights attorney told Newsweek that Vance's comments were valid.

Trump has been charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights over his response to the 2020 presidential election. The former president has pled not guilty to all counts and has repeatedly said that the charges against him are politically motivated. Newsweek has approached Donald Trump for comment via the press enquiry form on his official website.

As the 2020 election results were announced, Trump baselessly said that the polling had been rigged against him and launched a series of unsuccessful legal actions attempting to reverse Joe Biden's victory. On January 6, 2021, he addressed a huge Stop the Steal rally in Washington D.C., just hours before hundreds of his supporters stormed Congress in a bid to stop the election result being certified.

Along with the federal case, Trump is also being prosecuted in Georgia over claims he broke the law attempting to reverse the election in that state specifically, which he also denies.

Trump's legal team said that the former president's remarks constitute protected political speech, which is safeguarded by the First Amendment, adding that lots of other Americans expressed similar views.

However, Vance said she finds this argument unconvincing: "Trump's lawyer John Lauro sort of makes the government's argument here in the sense that, in writing the motion to dismiss he continues to push the big lie, he makes these arguments that there is abundant public evidence to support Trump's belief that there was fraud in the election.

"Of course that's not the case. And so in essence it's like a dog chasing its tail. Trying to make out a defense by pursuing the same lies that Trump is charged with, not the speech about the lies but the conspiracies, the fraud, that is the result," Vance added.

Bharara agreed with this assessment, saying: "It's really ironic because, in the brief for Trump, he associates himself with a mass of people in the country who believe in the fraud, and believe that the election was stolen, without noting the reason they think that is because Donald Trump is the one that started them on that road and is the one who spread the rumor, spread the lie, who went to court baselessly, who sent other lawyers to go into court baselessly.

"It's a little bit difficult to bootstrap yourself on the basis that many millions of people believe the election was stolen when you're the person who fermented that lie in the first place," Bharara added.

Trial lawyer and civil-rights attorney Adanté Pointer, a partner at legal firm Pointer & Buelna, Lawyers for the People, told Newsweek that Trump's claim that his post-election remarks are protected by the First Amendment is unconvincing.

Pointer said: "The First Amendment does not guarantee an unrestricted unlimited right to say whatever you want or like, but instead is restricted by boundaries that do not afford protection for persons who use speech to encourage lawlessness support, the subversion of laws and/or our democracy, nor the willful undermining of law and order.

"Former President Trump has been accused of engaging in speech that violates each and every one of those legal guidelines by not just the things he said, but the effect those words had upon the listeners, a.k.a. his supporters," Pointer added.

"He now seeks protection and to be shielded from accountability by wrapping himself in the protections afforded by the First Amendment, and it will be up to a judge and jury to decide whether or not he will be granted the immunity he now begs for."