It’s bad enough that one of the main Republican talking points regarding Donald Trump’s latest federal criminal charges is an attempt to erase the distinction between free speech and criminal conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government, obstruction of an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights. What’s worse is that the traditional media is, in its “neutral” mode of reporting, taking these claims seriously.
It’s one thing for Trump’s lawyers to attempt to defend him in media interviews, saying things like, “So the First Amendment protects President Trump in this way: After 2020, he saw all these irregularities, he got affidavits from around the country, sworn testimony, he saw the rules being changed in the middle of the election process—as a president, he’s entitled to speak on those issues.” Anyone is entitled to speak on those issues, however wrong or dishonest they are. It’s when they cross the line from talking to doing—and speech can be action when it’s pressuring other people to break laws or inciting violence—that they run into problems. But Trump’s lawyers have to defend him somehow.
It’s one thing for Trump’s lawyers to attempt to defend him in media interviews, saying things like, “So the First Amendment protects President Trump in this way: After 2020, he saw all these irregularities, he got affidavits from around the country, sworn testimony, he saw the rules being changed in the middle of the election process—as a president, he’s entitled to speak on those issues.” Anyone is entitled to speak on those issues, however wrong or dishonest they are. It’s when they cross the line from talking to doing—and speech can be action when it’s pressuring other people to break laws or inciting violence—that they run into problems. But Trump’s lawyers have to defend him somehow.