History's most famous mugshot
When I was an AUSA doing appeals (I did about 150 of them over the years), I found that one of the things that the court found most helpful (and professional) was when I would try to give the best and most lucid version of the defendant's argument (which his counsel often failed to do) and then answer it. I was wondering if you could do a version of that here. Specifically, as to the Jan 6 indictment from Jack Smith, I've heard some Trump backers say that there's a good First Amendment defense, pointing out that simply contesting election results is not a crime, and that in order to avoid chilling such contests, the courts should bend over backward not to criminalize even pretty aggressive behavior.
I don't know that I buy that argument, but I don't think the courts will treat it as frivolous. Indeed, I think it's about the best Trump has. So I was wondering if you could outline how that argument would look put in its most erudite and appealing form (which Trump's lawyers are unlikely to do), and then detail how Jack Smith should respond.
I do think this is the aspect of the case that's most likely to draw serious attention from judges, so hearing from an expert (like you) is going to improve my education.
I understand, but if you were a prosecutor trying Chesebro separately, would you spend most of the trial offering evidence of lies about Dominion and Caesar Chavez, tampering with voting machines, slandering election workers, plotting to send phony DOJ letters, late night White House meetings, etc., etc.? The one-sentence cross of most witnesses would be: did Chesebro have anything to do with that? And the answer would be: Never heard of the guy. Is all that evidence even admissible? There’s no hearsay problem, but is proof of activities of which Chesebro was unaware even relevant to whether HE conspired to conduct the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity? Does a prosecutor have an inherent right to present evidence of the full scope of the conspiracy a defendant is charged with entering regardless of how much time it takes and how little bearing it has on the defendant’s own guilt? And even if a prosecutor could do that, would it be sensible for her to do it? Wouldn’t cheseboro’s trial tend to become primarily a trial about writing some ridiculous legal memos, and wouldn’t that be very much to his advantage? Can you imagine a joint trial of the two defendants who’ve sought speedy trials so far, Chesebro and Powell? They had a common objective, but there would be very little overlap in the evidence bearing on their activities.
I think the speedy trial moves in Georgia have a lot to do with severing the movants’ cases from those of other defendants, particularly Trump. Consider how much less evidence will be admissible in individual trials.
I think the