Stay updated with breaking news from Trump isn t being. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
from other government entities. during that hearing, trump's legal team argued that too strict of a protective order would stifle the candidates constitutional rights. but judge chutkan, well, she basically shot that down. quote, mr. trump, like every american has a first amendment right to free speech. but that right is not absolute. it is an early blow to what is expected to be the centuries of trump's defense in the trial. since this lays indictments dropped in june, rather -- well it's kind of making the rounds. they've been arguing that the government's entire case is simply nothing more than a brazen attack on trump's first amendment political speech. >> this is a free speech killing indictment. killing free speech, that's what it is. >> criminalizing speech for this reason. what the president saw in the 2020 election was all these irregularities going on. >> he had every right to comment on that and act politically. you are entitled to question whether it was honest about.
he may be brought to justice by this prosecution. but that act alone won't protect the constitutional order. trump will return this indictment as he has done so with previous indictments, yet more proof he is the target of a corrupt and nefarious cabal aiming to destroy the country. so that means that if trump were able to harness this anger again and turn it into electoral wins or votes, his second term would be designed with one goal and one goal only. to make his legal troubles disappear. as david frum writes in the atlantic, the entire term would be consumed by the battle over trump's project to use the power of the presidency to protect himself from the consequences of his election crimes. with me, now ruth ben-ghiat professor of history at nyu and author of strong man, mussolini to the present. and molly jong-fass is back with us. ruth, i want to get your reaction to this argument from david corn.
that was the uniqueness of the first amendment. that is the uniqueness of america. but you know what? you shouldn't be prosecuted for your thoughts. >> yeah, so here's the thing with that, according to legal experts, that's not actually a defense that will hold any water. legal experts say that there is little legal merit to that argument, particularly since the breadth of steps taken by the ex president and his allies to overturn the election transformed mere speech into action. trump isn't being indicted for what he said about the 2020 election. he's actually being indicted for what he did, allegedly engaging in a criminal conspiracy to overturn the will of american voters. trump's first amendment fallacy isn't just a shaky defense in the courtroom, there is actually a growing risk that his refusal to remain silent could derail candidate trump and all of this could be before it even gets to hit the campaign trail in earnest.
me on reverend. >> your office obviously scored a big win last week. two trump organization companies were found guilty of multiple charges of criminal tax fraud. the core of the charges being the trump organization executives were compensated through fringe benefits, enabling those country to enable not paying taxes. you have said in interviews that donald trump himself had yet to be charged as the investigation is ongoing. prosecutors cast the illegal compensation it's being, quote, explicitly sanctioned by trump. trump has of course denied all along rooting. someone watching at home, hearing that -- asking why trump isn't being held personally accountable, what is your response? >> this is a consequential conviction, as you said. all of the charges presented, there were convictions on. it was against two of his namesake corporations.