(When posting about Trump indictments and court cases, please include something about WHICH indictment or court case in the subject line. Please include Federal, GA, NY, or other jurisdiction if there is ambiguity. Thank you.)
.
John Lauro, The Attorney for the Damned.  
.
http://www.siouxlandproud.com/news/politics/ap-trump-lawyer-hints-at-a-first-amendment-defense-in-the-jan-6-case-some-legal-experts-are-dubious/
Trump lawyer hints at a First Amendment defense in the Jan. 6 case. Some legal experts are dubious.
(reprint of an original AP story)
.
"WASHINGTON (AP) — Donald Trump’s legal team is characterizing his indictment in the special counsel’s 2020 election interference investigation as an attack on the former president’s right to free speech. But the case is not merely about Trump’s lies but also about the efforts he took to subvert the election, prosecutors say. ..."
.
"... “Saying a statement in isolation is one thing. But when you say it to another person and the two of you speak in a way and exchange information in a way that leads to action — that you want to take action to do something with that speech — then arguably it becomes unprotected,” said Mary Anne Franks, a law professor at George Washington University.
.
Those actions include enlisting slates of fake electors in seven battleground states won by Democrat Joe Biden to sign false certificates representing themselves as legitimate electors; trying to use the investigative power of the Justice Department to launch sham election fraud probes; and badgering his vice president, Mike Pence, to disrupt the ceremonial counting of electoral votes before Congress on Jan. 6, 2021. ..."
.
.
In an audio interview, Lauro said that the indictment of his client now empowers to ask the court to issue subpoenas on his behalf in pursuit of Trump's defense. (Sorry, I can't find that link using "John Lauro subpoena" and similar.)  
.
OK. Here comes my joke. John Lauro did NOT say this. I am not quoting Lauro. Here is my Trump Joke, making up a quote and attributing it to Lauro:  "Lauro said that he will be subpoenaing Hunter's Laptop." [rim shot!] Because everything about Trump is "What about Hunter's Laptop?" "Hunter's Laptop!" Get it?
.
Back to seriousness, some speculate that Lauro will want to subpoena the 6 as yet not charged co-conspirators to testify. “Typically in federal prosecutions, those unnamed co-conspirators are not that thrilled about testifying for the defense because they are worried about being charged in the future,” said Brandon Fox, a former federal prosecutor who now works as a defense attorney.
.
.
And a 2007 bio / story about John Lauro:  
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/24/nyregion/24lives.html
A White-Collar Lawyer Who Idolizes Darrow  
.
"If John Lauro is not known as “The Attorney for the Damned,” as Clarence Darrow was described, it is not for want of trying. ..."
.
"Most of my clients are accused of white-collar offenses, where oftentimes it’s not clear whether or not they are legally guilty. ..."
.
[About one of his cases, in which he advised his client to take a plea deal.] "“The decision that was made was the right one,” Mr. Lauro said, referring to the guilty plea, “and ultimately the most responsible to take.”"
.
Will Lauro advise Trump to take a plea?

As one lawyer pointed out, ALL conspiracies involve speech of some kind. But that doesn't make it legal to discuss how to rob a bank, murder someone or rob them. Or steal an election.

the power of subpoena to get all of the evidence the government has on which they are basing their belief that Trump is guilty and make an assessment whether Trump has enough risk to justify a plea deal.  If not, they will go to trial.  Most of the evidence so far has gone through the hyperbole machine of the leftist media and might not be nearly as damning as the public is being led to believe.  

I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TER, but I have watched every episode of the original Perry Mason series and I read current news articles regarding a variety of court cases and legal issues.  
.
It is my understanding that the Prosecution (personified as "Jack Smith" in this instance) turns over all of its materials to the Defense (personified as "Trump" in this instance). They do this pursuant to The Brady Rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_disclosure .
"The Brady doctrine is a pretrial discovery rule that was established by the United States Supreme Court in Brady v. Maryland (1963).[2] The rule requires that the prosecution must turn over all exculpatory evidence to the defendant in a criminal case. Exculpatory evidence is evidence that might exonerate the defendant."
.
Lauro does NOT have to subpoena Brady evidence. He gets it without asking. (In the Mar-a-Lago Document Retention case, Smith turned over more than 800,000 pages and additional video evidence to Trump and lawyers Kise and Blanche didn't even have to ask. http://www.npr.org/2023/07/13/1187591998/special-counsel-speedy-trial-trumps-documents-case )
.
According to what I have read (and heard on audio while in transit), Lauro may want to subpoena the six co-conspirators to get them to testify BEYOND what they testified to during their DoJ depositions. Lauro might want to try to PROVE that the elections in some states WERE fraudulent and that he might try to waste time and draw out the clock by trying to subpoena non-existent materials ([Fake quote, for jocular effect] "I demand that the Secretary of State deliver the REAL ballots to the Trump defense team." LOL!!! [Fake quote, for jocular effect] "I want the US DoD to turn over all of their spy satellite records that will PROVE that Jewish space lasers and Italian satellites changed Trump votes to Biden votes. ... What? No can do? ... Supreme Court? ... No problem. We can wait." LOL!!)

Hyperbole machine? That sounds like "Fake news! Fake news!" to me. Or maybe I should have begun with Trump's first day, with Sean Spicer's DISPROVED claim that Trump's Inauguration crowd "was the largest audience to witness an inauguration, period." [actual quote, sourced here]:
http://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/jan/22/sean-spicer/trump-had-biggest-inaugural-crowd-ever-metrics-don/
" "That was the largest audience to witness an inauguration, period." "
"At the first press briefing of the new administration, White House press secretary Sean Spicer blasted the media, saying they deliberately misled the public about the size of President Donald Trump’s inauguration crowd. ..."
.
I think that Smith with include Trump news conference hyperbole, Twitter hyperbole, and his other recorded hyperbole as evidence:  
http://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/fact-check-trumps-georgia-call-raffensperger
"... Claims about voter impersonation and dead people voting in the 2020 Georgia election:
.
" “I think the number is close to 5,000 people. And they went to obituaries. They went to all sorts of methods to come up with an accurate number and a minimum is close to about 5,000 voters.”
.
" “But you also have a substantial numbers [sic] of people, thousands and thousands who went to the voting place on November 3, were told they couldn’t vote, were told they couldn’t vote because a ballot had been put on their name.”
.
"The Trump campaign itself disproved these claims. A research report that it commissioned (but kept secret) identified only 23 “potential” episodes of people impersonating dead voters throughout the state. Georgia’s official investigation found four. ..."
.
A more extensive collection of Trump Hyperbole about voter fraud:
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/10/trumps-bogus-voter-fraud-claims/
I expect that some of those will reappear at trial.  
.
Did you have some examples that you wanted to cite?

Per Geraldo, Trump facing a “Win or Die” Campaign. Win the presidency or die in prison. Tonight’s appearance on Chris Cuomo’s show.  

Geraldo thinks Trump, like Nixon, should be pardoned. Wants to see Trump drop out of race in return for a Biden pardon.

...on which they are basing their belief that Trump is guilty..."  This statement is 100% FALSE!!!

 
In a criminal trial, the defendant's attorney does NOT have to subpoena the prosecution for the evidence they have on the defendant.  The prosecution is LEGALLY REQUIRED (WITHOUT A SUBPOENA) to turn over ALL evidence they possess in their investigation of the defendant, including evidence they don't intend to use at trial.  MOREOVER, the prosecution ALSO has to turn over any EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE they have about the defendant.  That means the prosecution has to turn over evidence it possesses which could possibly show that the defendant is innocent.

In one corner, we have a one-name celebrity like Cher or Bono or Oprah.  A former clownish talk-show host barely one step above Jerry Springer.  In the other corner we have a retired federal judge, one of the most respected Conservative legal minds in the country.

 
 Luttig called the indictment of Trump “historic, tragic, and a regrettable day for America."

“These are as grave of offenses against the United States as a president could commit, save possibly treason.   The former president is neither a victim nor a martyr today.  America is Donald Trump’s victim and Donald Trump has martyred America for his own selfish personal and political ambitions.  In a word, Donald Trump has put himself above his country — once again.”
"These events will forever scar and stain the United States. And they will forever scar and stain the United States in the eyes of the world."
http://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/indictment-jan-6-trump-08-02-23/h_876b0b039aa7d9e1f330540b0467b042

 
"Geraldo" - ROFLMAO!!!

 
Historians agree that Ford should NOT have pardoned Nixon.  If Nixon would have been tried, convicted and sent to prison, Trump wouldn't have pulled the shit he did.  If Trump faces no consequences, there would be nothing to stop a candidate in the future - Republican OR Democrat - from attempting the same thing.

-- Modified on 8/3/2023 6:57:37 PM

Lauro went on Fox News and said to Laura Ingraham:
"What President Trump said is this: 'Let's go with option D (one of several options Eastman presented).  Let's just halt.  Let's just pause the voting and allow the state legislatures to take one last look and make a determination as to whether or not the elections were handled fairly.'".

 
Trump's criminal defense lawyer Lauro quoted Trump committing a crime - a criminal conspiracy.  Page 34 of the indictment says:
"On January 4, the Defendant (Donald Trump) held a meeting with Co-Conspirator 2 (John Eastman), the Vice President, the Vice President's Chief of Staff, and the Vice President's Counsel for the purpose of convincing the Vice President, based on the Defendant's knowingly false claims of election fraud, that the Vice President should reject or send to the states Biden's legitimate electoral votes, rather than count them."

 
The indictment also described this occurring in the same meeting:
"The Defendant (Trump) and Co-Conspirator 2 (Eastman) then asked the Vice President to either unilaterally reject the legitimate electors from the seven targeted states, or send the question of which state was legitimate to the targeted states' legislatures."

 
If you think it was a mistake or a slip of the tongue by Lauro, think again.  He went on TV again - at 10:25 ET he was on Greg Kelly Reports on Newsmax and said this:
"President Trump wanted to get to the truth.  He desperately wanted to get to what happened during the 2020 cycle.  He did it in the courtroom, he did it in lobbying legislatures, that's all First Amendment, and then at the end he asked Mr. Pence to pause the voting for ten days, allow the state legislatures to weigh in and then they could make a determination to audit or re-audit or re-certify..."

 
How incompetent can a lawyer be?!?!  Lauro actually admitted Trump's guilt on national TV!!  He admitted that the indictment accurately described Trump's statements during the meeting.

prosecutors are completely honest in the way they conduct themselves, then the Brady rule would suffice, but there are many convictions that have been overturned on appeal when it was revealed that the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence.  To prevent a prosecutor from saying later that he was unaware that they had certain evidence or documents in their files that prove the convicted person innocent, you do specific requests for things, which raises the bar to require a diligent search for the specific evidence being requested.  This is strategic for the defense in that it lowers the threshold for getting a conviction thrown out if the prosecution did, indeed, play hide the ball leading up to the trial.  Despite the INTENDED protections of Brady, good defense counsel will look for ways to dig deeper into what the prosecution knows that they are not disclosing.  Maybe you missed the text messages between members of the Justice Department when they were prosecuting Russian collusion for two years.  They were not turned over voluntarily, it was work of whistle-blowers and defense counsel running their OWN investigation.  In addition to the Brady rule, Lauro will be using the power of subpoena to gather evidence and interview and depose potential witnesses.  Failure to turn over everything required by Brady is pretty common, but prosecutors will often risk a mistrial because they can usually get away with some of it.  

Trump is not guilty unless the Biden administration can prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that Trump knew, on January 6th, that he had lost a legitimately held election.

The prosecution will have a hard time proving Trump’s state of mind regarding election validity in the days leading up to January 6th.

Trump had an obligation to the voters and the Constitution to ensure that valid election results were being presented to Congress. All Lauro did last night was lay out Trump’s defense, not admit guilt.

http://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6696&context=lawreview
"WILLFUL IGNORANCE, CULPABILITY, AND THE CRIMINAL LAW.
When a defendant is charged with a crime requiring knowledge of some fact, but the defendant deliberately avoided learning whether the fact in question obtained, it is common practice among federal courts to give so-called willful ignorance jury instructions. Such instructions tell the jury that it may find the knowledge element for the crime to be satisfied by the defendant's willful ignorance of the relevant fact (also called the inculpatory proposition). ..."
.
http://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1782&context=fac_articles_chapters
The Ethics of Willful Ignorance
"... Much has been written on the notion of "conscious avoidance," or "willful ignorance" in criminal law. In essence, the criminal law doctrine dictates that someone who deliberately ignores obvious facts is as culpable as a person who knows those facts but continues despite them. ..."
.
There is a lot of evidence that Trump was repeatedly informed that the fraud claims were fraudulent: 60 court cases lost; internal references to "Team Crazy" vs "Team Normal; every WH lawyer (Cippilone, Hirschman, Cobb, et al) and AG (Barr) and others were telling Trump that TRUMP LOST! "You must leave the WH on Jan 20."; Trump fired the head of the Federal Cyber Security Office as soon as he said, "Most secure election in US history"; etc.. Mark Meadows called Trump from GA and told him that the GA result was valid and secure. Within a short time (same or next day), Trump tweeted that the GA election result was fraudulent.  
.
Trump continues (as recently as yesterday, Indictment Day) to maintain that the 2020 election was fraudulent. That is not just willful ignorance, that is grounds for an insanity defense.  
.
(Google "trump willful ignorance" and get numerous articles going back to 2017, the beginning of Trump's term, about staff and others complaining about Trump's willful ignorance of facts on almost every topic. Trump would rather believe Putin than the US Intel services. Etc..)
... Trump did it by threatening Raffensberger and others with criminal prosecution (oh, sorry, that's free speech?), he did it by encouraging the "fake electors" scam and other ACTIONS.  
.
Is Lauro going to subpoena Sydney Powell, Mike "My Pillow Guy" Lindell, and the other crazies to testify on Trump's behalf? I hope the DoJ will cross examine Powell on the source of her election fraud claims:
http://www.npr.org/2023/02/20/1158223099/fox-news-dominion-wackadoodle-election-fraud-claim
"The 'wackadoodle' foundation of Fox News' election-fraud claims"
"A woman who says the wind talks to her and put forth claims of election fraud in the 2020 presidential race that she admitted were "pretty wackadoodle" turns out to be a key source of allegations that Fox News presented, night after night, to millions of viewers late that fall. ..."
.
"... "Who am I? And how do I know all of this?... I've had the strangest dreams since I was a little girl," the woman wrote in the email shared by Powell with Bartiromo and Dobbs. "I was internally decapitated, and yet, I live." ..."  
.
I think Lauro will soon have to be switching from a "free speech" to an "insanity" defense.

I repeat myself:  
A more extensive collection of Trump Hyperbole about voter fraud:
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/10/trumps-bogus-voter-fraud-claims/
I expect that some of those will reappear at trial.  
.
**** Did you have some examples that you wanted to cite? **** or will you continue to ignore Trump Hyperbole = TRUMP LIES.

Anybody have access to Westlaw or other sources to check to see if Lauro subpoenaed records from DoJ? Are filed subpoenas subject to public access?  
.
EDIT: Clarified that Trump Hyperbole is actually a fire hose of TRUMP LIES.

-- Modified on 8/4/2023 6:11:40 AM

He was flat-out told he'd lost by Bill Barr, his own White House counsel and others. And he ADMITTED he knew he'd lost when talking to the Joint Chiefs. It's all in the indictment. Which Chickie apparently hasn't read.

This case will likely go all the way to the Supreme Court.

An interesting op-ed from Professor Jonathan Turley.

Many legal experts agree that "even lies are protected speech." The same experts disagree with Turley that the issue is free speech.  The charges are NOT about Free Speech. From the indictment:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/8a7503af-fde7-4061-818c-7d7e0ee06036.pdf
.
"3). The Defendant *****had a right, like every American, to speak publicly about the
election and even to claim, falsely, that there had been outcome-determinative fraud***** during the
election and that he had won. ..."  
.
"The Conspiracy
6. From on or about November 14, 2020, through on or about January 20, 2021, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the Defendant, DONALD J. TRUMP, did knowingly combine, conspire, confederate, and agree with co-conspirators, known and unknown to the Grand Jury, to defraud the United States by using dishonesty, fraud, and deceit to impair, obstruct, and defeat the lawful federal government function by which the results of the presidential election are collected, counted, and certified by the federal government. ..."
.
E.g., submitting FALSE ELECTORS was an ILLEGAL ACTION, not a matter of free speech. And so on.  
.
The disagreements won't be settled on TER P&R, major newspaper Op Eds, Twitter, or on Fox News. I'm waiting for it to be settled in the courts, the sooner the better.

I see this case getting dragged all the way to the Supreme Court. Will be interesting to see how long it takes.

the First Amendment is a defense to the indictment since it criminalizes speech plus conduct,  the problem is that the First Amendment is probably sufficiently  implicated to be used in other ways that will delay  the trial post election. In particular, I anticipate a motion to dismiss on First Amendment grounds, and for selective prosecution (“Jack Smith is punishing me for exercising my First Amendment rights- I want to serve discovery to show he hates me”). They will be denied by the court, and Trump will then appeal  that ruling.

The appeal divests the trial court of jurisdiction, so everything is frozen until the DC Circuit panel denies the appeal. Then Trump moves for the full court to hear it. Denied again. Now a petition for cert. Denied (I hope). Unless all of these courts deny the appeal on an expedited basis, we are past the election.

A lot of talking heads have claimed there are no “interlocutory appeals” by criminal defendants but that is not correct. A criminal defendant can always appeal  the denial of a motion to dismiss under the “collateral order” doctrine. The only recognized forms I know are double jeopardy, Speech and Debate Clause, and bail reduction. But there is nothing to stop Trump’s attys from asking the court to extend the doctrine to political speech “when he is being prosecuted by his political opponent.” (sign). After all, if the indictment sinks his election chances, no post trial appeal can remedy this. This argument while meritless is no more frivolous than most of his arguments. He does not have to win – only delay.  

So sadly I think the odds of the trial being held before the election are slim and if he is re-elected, the federal cases are toast.

Excellent analysis

"...New Trump indictment bulldozes the First Amendment"

 
Then, instead of defending and expounding on his subject line with some cogent reasoning of his own, cks175 merely cuts and pastes the thoughts and words of Jonathan Turdley.
http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion-boards/politics-and-religion-39/even-lies-are-protected-speech-new-trump-indictment-bulldozes-the-first-amendment-431574?page=en  

 
OK, so cks175 is not a brilliant legal mind and he lets someone else do his thinking for him.  That's fine, but then marikod posts that Turdley was WRONG for claiming the First Amendment is a defense to the indictment.  And how does cks175 respond?  He calls marikod's post an "excellent analysis."  

 
LOL - Perpetual 1L marikod crawls out of the woodwork and cks175 agrees with him after first agreeing with Jonathan Turdley.  Make up your mind cks175.

Intelligent and reasonable discussion is welcome here.  

Marikod, in his opening, did post a counterpoint to the Turley article, however BigPapasan failed to grasp the main points and conclusion of Marikod’s comment.

where prosecutors did NOT turn over exculpatory evidence and the conviction is overturned, but if they HAD turned it over, they would have lost the trial, so the conventional wisdom for many prosecutors is, try to get away with it if you can.  Otherwise, you will lose anyway.