The cases is a ridiculous case.
It's the 1st November case,
but we don't want Trump to speak.
So they want me. They take away rights or First
Amendment.
There are two very different versions of events around the
January 6 attack on the capital.
It's described in the indictment It was fueled by lies.
Lies by the defendant targeted at obstructing A bedrock function
of the US government.
Here's what we know now.
Why are Trump's lawyers arguing free speech?
What Trump's lawyers are doing is that they're taking the
part of the indictment where it says that Trump had
used these false claims of election fraud knowingly.
And they're bringing in this First Amendment defense saying Trump
had the right to spread these false claims of election
fraud.
Like this was free speech.
What is criminal intent versus free speech?
So in this case, intent is really defined,
you know, as the conscious purpose of a defendant to
commit the actions of a crime.
You know, to commit the actions that make up a
crime.
And that's very different from free speech.
You know, free speech is the right of a person
to express themselves.
Is the right of a person to say things that
they want to say?
Does Trump need to prove he believed he won?
All of these conspiracies are kind of built upon the
fact that the indictment is accusing him of knowingly.
Spreading false claims. Trump did have the right to spread
false claims about election fraud.
You know, Democrats have questioned the legitimacy of elections in
in previous,
in previous times. But what the indictment is really,
you know, accusing Trump of is using these false claims
to overturn an election.
And that's where you have,
you know, this intent to commit a conspiracy.