Prime time with laura coats joins now. Happy monday to you im actually perhaps as stand as the judges there was not more advisement by council at the very least for that sentencing. If youre calling me a cynic that might be true. Nice to see you caitlin him also jealous that you guys are not best friends. Im so happy for you its wonderful. Dont worry when i hang with katie will obviously invite you to come with us. Can you invite simone biles with the same height. Thank you so much and good evening im laura code thank you for joining me and tonight despite a judge warning they will be slapped in handcuffs if he violates the police his rhetoric is even growing more and more by the day. In fact his railing against the judge and the prosecutors and his successor. Even some key witnesses even someone he knows quite well. Im talking about Vice President mike pence. Hes also telling some critics to go to just days after a certain night meant. This one over efforts to overturn the election so now the big question that everyone is asking and waiting for that judge ruling on that protective order is just how far can trump maybe push the line. Just a short time ago they said he was just talking politics here when he threatened to go after anyone who came after him. Now in light of this trumps team is asking the judge to lighten up when it comes to setting the rules on what evidence their client can discuss publicly. Special counsel has just responded saying that trump while he wants to try this case in the media and they want to try it in the court of law. We are hearing a variety of defenses from his attorney. You will see a couple that we will word chart right there. Free speech technical violation of the constitution it runs the gamut. Lets talk with one of trumps attorneys, hes not a Trial Member Bodies an attorney. Hes not involve the Special Counsel cases but he is here with me tonight jessi im glad to see you thank you. Im sure youve been asked a great deal but what the other lawyers are saying about the defenses. I dont question on the trial team but you know these cases quite well. There was one from one of your colleagues who made the comment that look pin his comments regarding Vice President pence the word he used was aspirational. Listen to this. What President Trump did not do is direct Vice President pence to do anything he asked him in an aspirational, way asking is covered by the First Amendment. So, this reads as a bit odd to many people. Notion that you would be aspiring, to do . What do you believe that is the case . I do believe its a case. One thing we have to remember is that the First Amendment has more than the speech, cause more than the assembly clause. The First Amendment has the petition for. And so in this case that means you can always ask a Government Act or to do something. That is something that is a key amendment right. Its not just mentioned in the first it goes right to the heart of what the founders were looking at when they decided to set up a constitution and our First Amendment rights so doesnt matter if youre the president of the United States you can always ask Government Officials to do x or y. Exactly right there is a grievances portion of it on us as you really can consult you can contest and challenge but you cant conspire and doesnt the address of grievances and when youre asking an official to do something that is unlawful or outside of their Lawful Authority . I know these are all allegations and they have to be proven but if what they had said is true that would include not just a First Amendment free speech or political statements benign. It would include trying to get someone to do something unlawful. Thats beyond the First Amendment. In this case what theyve alleged its not be on the First Amendment. And im not saying what theyve alleged is true. Im just saying even if it was trueo conspiracy to do illegal act. And so when youre saying that congress is going to do this and i want them to do why actions instead of ex actions or want the Vice President to do a instead of b. That is not a conspiracy to do something illegal and the extent that you would say that it was. Thats a real problem to the statutes because they could actually be saying these prosecutors they may be getting way over their skis here and the statute itself could be unconstitutionally vague because its sweeping up illegal contact and would have a Chilling Effect on Freedom Of Speech in the right to position your government for a grievances. So, conspiracy charges are quite common. Obviously not against the former president. Someone say now and the coconspirators are charged in the caption. But that happens from time from time a severance cases. Youre not being tried together. But its not just the idea of saying id prefer you to do some red like this to be the case the case. The allegations of truth and must be proven actually go further than that. Mike pence suggested the pressure was far more than this benign a full slate of electors over various states. It includes the idea of providing fraudulent bases and documents to convince the ceremonial ruled to take place. Im hooked on an ocean to go beyond. Im with you on political speech. This goes far beyond that. It really doesnt go beyond that i really is just asking a Government Official to do something. And really i think there are some issues with what the prosecutors talk about mike pence saying. If you look at mike pences words and what he said time and time again it actually supports donald trump. I think mike pence if its ever gets to trial, i dont think it should but if it ever does make it to trial mike pence is gonna be a star witness for donald trump because what he has basically said time and time again as they may have had disagreements but there was a conversation that needed to happen. Donald trump thought that conversation about the votes belonging in the state legislator. On the advice of counsel. Member donald trump is doing this on advice of counsel. Mike pence thought that that should happen in the halls of congress. Thats perfectly acceptable. Im impactful points there. I think you can agree that you can just ask a person in office to do anything and it needs the First Amendment. I couldnt say a member of congress that i want them to be a hitman for someone that will go be on the ideas so there are some foundational issues with that. Number two i do want to play what mike pence had to say and im stunned at the notion that there be a thought that he might be a good witness on behalf of donald trump. Listen to what he had to say to clarify the points of play for you why i think he might not be in agreement with you. The day before january six if my memory serves as lawyers came back and said we want you to reject votes outright. They were asking me to overturn the election. I had no right to overturn the election. What i want the American People to know is that he was wrong then he was wrong now. I had no right to reject or return votes. So im giving you that look it doesnt really look like i put this person to make me look good. First of all i think its important to say what he said that and thats when his lawyers came and talked him about. As the Vice President said the lawyers came and asked him to do that everything Vice President trump did it was under the advice of counsel and talking about the 12th Amendment actually requires something that is up to legal debate and has been something that has been debated legally for over 125 years almost 150 years. So there are certainly questions about the 12th Amendment and its why you take legal advice. Why you ask lawyers in some cases its various teams lawyers from great law schools and law professors. What does the law require of us. President trump absolutely had a right to rely on what those lawyers told him. That brings me to the third point with the advice of counsel. Jesse it touches a really interesting dynamic when its advice of counsel defense. And you know advice of counsel defenses are not something that will generally rue the day however from my perspective it sets up the notion that you will have attorneys that will reach some sort of privilege in order to either confirm what trump is saying or contradict what he is saying that opens up a different pandoras box and youve seen it in the grand jury that weve had one lawyer that has had that attorneyclient privilege. And because your lawyers mean in the thing are you concerned that advice of counsel defense when you pick these two parties against each others not gonna bode well for donald trump . No im not worried about that at all. And you write theres always attorneyclient privilege issues in any litigation and certainly in a complicated piece of litigation that is huge constitutional ramifications like this one does. There are always those issues but i think in this case a reliance on Council Defense is extremely strong. Not only do you have the unprecedented nature of what was going on in 2020 during the elections and election taking place during a pandemic where the rules are changing on a regular basis, being able to rely on healers especially in cases like that is important. And i think it will be up to the trial team to decide that, for sure. But i think President Trump of a very strong reliance in Council Defense. Until maybe former Training General Counsel says its not our Deputy Attorney general and the list of lawyers who have very contrary notions. But theres a lot more to unpack. Im glad to see you and well talk again. I have a feeling it might go to trial. Thank you so much for having me. Lets get some perspective on all this and analyze it but first everyone just a short time ago on cnn Chris Christie the former new jersey government and our now many hopeful addressed trumps legal issues listen. There are always limits on free speech this is a classic you cant yell fire in a crowded theater. And by the way when you are a criminal defendant out on bail, lets focus on that thin he is now out on bail in three different jurisdictions. New york florida and washington d. C. I have a front runner in this race who is out on bail in three jurisdictions. What happens when you let out as that there are restrictions placed on you for you to stay out. One of the restrictions that was placed on him was no contact or intimidation of potential witnesses. He saying if you go after me im coming up for you, his lawyers are saying that that was a generalized political speech and not directed anyone. Of course thats what theyre gonna say because what they want to say is among at a campaign fee do that again. Do you think thats what they said privately to. When the lawyers that when i jump out the window having to defend some of the staff. Lets bring Associate Professor of law vita johnson former. Jenner six investigative counsel and cnn political commentator kristen saltese. National review editor who wants to jump out of the window. Now who are the lawyers . Chris he thinks that you are going to want to jump out of the window when it comes to this defense about one of them in particular that this was an aspirational request. That it was just sort of a if you feel like it wanted to do it. I think right now theyre just throwing everything at the wall seeing what will stick i think pence really hurts them particularly his statement that donald trump pulled a mere two honest because it certainly seems to suggest that donald trump himself wasnt being honest when he was saying that he won the 2020 election. So i think it really just testing other theories right now theyre ways away from trials are trying to figure what works. Of course theres a lot of conversation about what the First Amendment entails its more. Than just free speech does that hold water to you because certainly you can see trump saying well im actually doing that right now when im criticizing the judge in the prosecution. Why stop now thats all part of the First Amendment. Accuse words are regularly used against him and conspiracy cases. Here we have conspiracy to disenfranchise certain voters over the election. The former president s words are using that was pretty clever in the Special Counsel indictment that he had a whole section on the president s intent on what he shouldve known about the big lie the time. The former president deliberately disregarded the information. Might have been cabinet support evidence, rather than evidence of the crime itself. I think it does go into the notion of the advice of counsel. There were the bar and others who said i had the exactly opposite advice for you to have right now. Let me ask you this, kristen, because im a little stunned that you think that pence might be an ideal witness. What am i missing here . Im unsure why they think pence would be positive for them. If anything, they are just hoping that by mike pence being out there, mike pence has become a very unpopular figure in the republican party, and the extent that their primary objective is to try to win this in the court of Public Opinion, perhaps this sort of says, look, at the highest levels dont trump own lieutenants were not being loyal to him, or taking seriously his grievances about the election. What i think so much of this falls apart, and why im so frustrated every time this gets called the january six indictment, is that when you go to the argument about free speech, a lot of voters including a ton of Republican Voters will say you should be allowed to complain that you feel like the election was stolen from you. That should be fine. And what you cant do, and what the indictment is really about, is that you cannot call up the secretary of state of georgia and say finally 11,780 votes. That is not, hey will you look into something for me . That is a direct ask and goes beyond put goal. I would never smirk at christian, not at her, or just out of delight. I think that one of the things that were seeing, and pence is a great example of this, is how the distinction that we all so carefully guard between the law and politics is just melting away before our eyes. If trump attacks pence, is that Witness Intimidation where is that fighting a rival for the republican nomination . It seems to me that we now have a situation where trumps ways to get back to the white house, and his race to stay out of jail are the same thing. So judges are going to be constantly asked to make these incredibly uncomfortable choices. Because yes, any other defendant in this position, maybe they wouldve thrown the book at him, but not every defendant is running for president of the United States with a credible shot. To raise that point as well, many people may have thought that they think pence is going to be testifying in favor of trump. But just the fact that he would be there, and i have a visceral reaction as a voter to him, somebody might say you know what, the enemy of my enemy is my friend and if youre voting against him or youre testifying against, him its enough for me. But to your point, is it one in the same the court of Public Opinion and the court of law, here . That is what the Special Counsel is saying, that hes going to try the entire thing in this court of Public Opinion and not want to do it only in the courthouse. What is the danger of that . Well, one danger that i see is that a lot of people have taken action based on what they think donald trump wants them to do. So the buffalo shooter, the shooter in el paso texas, and the thousands of people being prosecuted for january six. Those are all people who took Donald Trumps words and tried to do what hes asking of them to really catastrophic results for the country. To be clear, some of what you have mentioned, the el paso shooter and the walmart shooter, trump would argue that i did not direct anyone to be involved in a mass shooting, i did not direct anyone to engage in gun violence to this degree. So how do you thread that needle . Of course, but a lot of his rhetoric, and absolutely agree that it is in many instances political rhetoric, gets taken to these really dangerous places. And so i totally understand why the Special Counsel here would be so concerned about the truth social posts that are going out to millions of americans. Marcus, what is your thought . That was a big part of investigation is looking at the power of the president s words. We looked at it with a standby for the proud boys. A lot of the witnesses were tracking what the president was saying on truth social or other social media platforms. I think you have to accept the fact that his words have power and carry weight with those who are going through be it with the Congressional Committee or the department of justice. Into a gun or so is to ignore reality. The hearing that might happen, it has to be more them about the protective order, which normally goes to the notion of whether or not they can still display and publicly put into the Public Square the information so we can read more about what is intent might be. The thought just pluck it because as this rhetoric becomes more inflammatory against the judge, we are now learning that she is getti