Former President Donald Trump's lawyer John Lauro made appearances on five different Sunday morning shows, asserting that his client's involvement in attempting to overturn the 2020 election did not amount to criminal conduct, but was merely "aspirational."
"Every single thing that President Trump is being prosecuted for involved aspirational asks - asking state legislatures, asking state governors, asking state electoral officials to do the right thing," Lauro told Fox News. "In fact, even asking Vice President Pence was protected by free speech."
Lauro made appearances on CNN, ABC, Fox, NBC and CBS defending his client, who was indicted last week on four federal charges, including conspiracy to defraud, obstruction and conspiracy of rights.
"These shallow attempts to explain away the damning conduct described in the indictment are a clear sign that Trump does not have a strong defense to the charges, Temidayo Aganga-Williams, a white-collar partner at Selendy Gay Elsberg and former senior investigative counsel for the House Jan. 6 committee, told Salon. "When a defendant has a convincing defense, he leads with it. President Trump's lawyer is instead ignoring the detailed indictment and leading with baseless claims. This may work for Trump in front of his political base, but it will not work for a jury."
Former federal prosecutor Kevin O'Brien pointed out that Trump is still entitled to a "vigorous defense" in and out of court and his lawyer is well within his rights to make arguments that offer Trump's side to the issues raised in what is a "very unusual indictment."
"John Lauro's various statements to the press defending his client's conduct by invoking the First Amendment and other principles may well be wrong, even glaringly so, but they are part of a defense attorney's job," O'Brien said.
Lauro continued to defend Trump even in the face of evidence that he exerted pressure on his then-Vice President Mike Pence to discard valid votes for Joe Biden.
"What President Trump didn't do is direct Vice President Pence to do anything," Lauro told CNN. "He asked him in an aspirational way."
When questioned about Trump's call to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, asking him to "find" enough votes to overturn his loss in the state, he claimed that Trump's comments weren't a "threat at all."
He continued: "What he was asking for is for Raffensperger to get to the truth. He believed that there were in excess of 10,000 votes that were counted illegally. And what he was asking for is the Secretary of State to act appropriately and find these votes that were counted illegally. … That was an aspirational ask."
None of his lawyer's statements would be out of place in a courtroom, where the advocate usually "must milk every possible inference to support reasonable doubt," O'Brien said.
He added that since the prosecution has filed a massive indictment generating "unprecedented publicity," Lauro and Trump's other lawyers should be able to respond to its arguments in any way they plausibly can.
Smith very likely anticipated this defense that Trump's directives were merely "aspirational," and the indictment spells out the evidence the government would seek to use to defeat it, former federal prosecutor Christine Adams, a partner at Los Angeles-based Adams, Duerk & Kamenstein, told Salon.
"It seems from the indictment that the most important witness will be former Vice President Mike Pence himself, who would testify that Trump directed him to reject the legitimate electoral votes or send them to the state legislatures to review, and that when Pence refused, Trump berated him, threatened to publicly criticize him and told Pence he was 'too honest,'" Adams said. "These key moments in the indictment will certainly challenge Trump's narrative that he did not 'direct Vice President Pence to do anything.'"
Aganga-Williams said that characterizing Trump's requests as "aspirational" is utterly contradicted by the indictment, which includes several examples of Trump "acting with a sober mind and with criminal intent."
"The indictment is filled with evidence that Trump knew what he was doing and that he knew it was wrong," Aganga-Williams said.
The former president has pleaded not guilty to all the charges filed against him and has maintained he is innocent.
While Lauro made his rounds defending his client's actions, Trump took to Truth Social to claim that his lawyers will request the recusal of the federal judge overseeing his criminal case as well as a venue change, though Lauro said in an interview that no "final decision" has been made.
"There is no way I can get a fair trial with the judge 'assigned' to the ridiculous freedom of speech/fair elections case," Trump posted on his social media platform."Everybody knows this and so does she! We will be immediately asking for recusal of this judge on very powerful grounds and likewise for venue change, out (of) D.C."
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is presiding over Trump's case, is renowned for her reputation as one of the more strict judges in matters concerning January 6 defendants and has issued more severe sentences for certain defendants than what the prosecution had sought, according to The New York Times.
Chutkan has also described the attack on the Capitol as a "very real danger" to American democracy. Trump in his social media posts asserted that his legal team will try to move his trial out of Washington since he would never get a "fair trial."
There has been no formal request and they would "appear to have little or no chance of success," O'Brien said.
Trump also continued to attack special counsel Jack Smith in his social media posts calling him "deranged," and suggested that he could have brought the case "years ago," but instead waited until "right in the middle of [his] election campaign."
His posts come just two days after prosecutors filed a motion for a protective order, which would prevent Trump from publicly sharing evidence in the case.
The protective order is meant to govern the disclosure of discovery material, including witness names, and not the current threats, O'Brien pointed out.
"Judge Chutkan will probably have to impose a gag order forbidding them, on pain of going to jail – where Trump will likely wind up if the threats continue," he added.
