Trump’s defense lawyer has given Jack Smith ‘a roadmap of what they intend to argue’ at trial

joining me now on all of this NBC law enforcement and intelligence correspondent Ken Delaney, former Manhattan Assistant District Attorney Catherine Christian, MSNBC legal analyst Danny Savalas, and the Washington Post's Phil Rucker will soon be next national editor, so Danny Savalas's first year I want to start. With the last line of

defense

, one of the three or four lines of Trump's

lawyer

, John Lauro, from the discussions between Mike Pence and Donald Trump prior to January 6, he said that the president asked him to violate the constitution, which is another way of saying

what

he asked to violate the law, he never said no, that is wrong, that is wrong, a technical violation of the Constitution is not a violation of the criminal law, that is simply wrong and saying that is contrary to decades of legal status and it went on and on, Chuck Todd and of course, John Lauro Danny,

what

do you think of these initial public

defense

s of John Lauro over this past weekend?

Laura's statement is technically correct, in other words, that a violation of the Constitution is not a penal code, even though it contains one or two crimes. defined in the Constitution, but the rest is not a crime code, but Trump is not charged with any crimes under the Constitution, he is charged with crimes under the United States code, which contains federal crimes, so that statement, although technically correct, that's not really relevant uh, you can violate the constitution in many ways and it's not criminal, no one is saying that what

they

are saying is that what Trump did was criminal and the defense is saying that he was exercising his constitutional rights, so it's a violation of the Constitution is kind of a red herring, here we go, so Catherine Christian, what is your response to Largo's, excuse me, Laura's many arguments, including you know what he was saying in the first place? place that there is freedom of expression here and that possibly the president is not being accused? with everything he has said is with the actions he took after saying these things.

Well, first of all, he's someone who tried cases for 30 years. I loved it when the defense attorney explained what his defense was and Mr. Laro spent the entire time. yesterday he basically let the special counsel know what the defenses are going to be, even citing cases and what

they

're doing, and I could safely tell you that Jack Smith learned as a young prosecutor in the Manhattan DA's office to anticipate defenses to build the evidence and arguments to defeat them at

trial

, so what Mr. Laurel did was basically guide the prosecutors to a road map of what they

intend

to

argue

.

Now he must follow up on what Danny said is true, technically correct, that there was no technical violation of the Constitution. but your client is being criminally charged with conspiring against the civil rights of others, conspiring to injure and intimidate people in the free exercise of their constitutional rights, so no, he is not being charged with a violent relationship with the Constitution , but there is a criminal charge that your client is accused of on the grounds of freedom of expression and look, let me tell you that Danny is a defense attorney. I wouldn't expect any competent defense attorney to go on television and say my client is guilty.

I give up, he has to defend his client. you have to work with what you have you have to say I'm going to change places I'm going to ask the judge to disqualify herself you have to make those arguments but I can say that the free speech argument is ridiculous he will do it and then the special prosecutor will fight it. I prosecuted financial fraud. Financial fraudsters use The Gift of Gab to deceive people out of their money to turn people into false voters, so many crimes, bribery is a speech, you use your speech to deceive someone. do something to commit a crime, so to say that there was freedom of speech, right to conspire against the right to conspire to defer to the United States or obstruct justice, I think it's ridiculous, but he has to make the arguments and Ken barely has remained silent. today, explain some of that to me, it's true, you are really setting the table for the court battle here, you have a new post on Truth social where you say no, I should not get a protective order because it would affect my right.

Jack Smith and the Department of Justice should disrupt free speech, though, because they're illegally leaking everywhere and he repeated that line of attack and some sound we got over the weekend, listen, oh, disrupted Jack Smith, do you? No? look at the rank, see the picture with the purple robe, he's a deranged human being, we get stronger every day someone says you should treat him better, maybe it would be kind, let me tell you this guy is a bad guy with a lost soul, So what people need to understand is that this is a protective order that is a standard in all criminal cases.

It's about not revealing the evidence that prostitution provides to Donald Trump, including a very sensitive grand jury. It is not a gag order. It is not a gag order. and that may become a problem in the future, but because, because you are already attacking the prosecutor and the judge in this case, that question arises and we may see the judge make some comments about your inflammatory comments as he already did the special prosecutor in his Friday night Court Presentation citing that post where he said if you come after me, I'll come after you. Andrew, another of Trump's arguments over the weekend, said Trump's pressure on Mike Pence was aspirational and that he was criminalizing speech. free speech to say he couldn't have done it, you know, he asked for a pause, yeah, go ahead, okay, go ahead, I'm sorry, I would say the problem with that defense is that Mike Pence in two different interviews this weekend he said a quote that is not true, essentially quote they told me to overturn the election, they specifically asked me to literally reject the votes for Mike Pence to be one of the main Witnesses.

Basically, they've said that's not true, that probably what Mike Pence said, you know, was a cause and effect for Mr. Trump to do social media uh, which I think is almost a threat to Mike Pence as a witness. of that social media post that he put there so aspirationally and the allegation is that he's innocent of having been proven guilty in his accusations, so he's basically saying that he aspirationally said to Mike Pence, you know afterwards? you know, Mike Pence said, I'm not going to do it, he said, you're too honest, and then also, aspirationally, you know, he said, well, now I'm going to have to target you publicly, so yeah, obviously his

lawyer

won't do it.

He is going to admit that he is not going to admit what he cannot deny, he is going to deny what he cannot admit and that is that, as the vice president said, they asked him to literally reject votes, that is his problem. Mr. Trump has