Just a technicality
Other lawyers are surprised to learn this:
If former President Donald Trump committed a “technical violation of the Constitution,” it doesn’t mean he necessarily broke any criminal laws, John Lauro, Trump’s criminal defense attorney, argued on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
…
“A technical violation of the Constitution is not a violation of criminal law,” Lauro contended, calling it “just plain wrong” to suggest that Trump had pressed Pence to break the law.
Other lawyers beg to differ.
When I drive at 20 over the speed limit, that is a technical violation of the law, a violation discovered by utilising techniques of detection. It is also an actual violation of the law.
To me, this looks like an admission that T**** has no defense and his lawyers are grasping at straws.
This does keep alive the established and not terribly proud history of Trump lawyers talking shit about the defences they will run in public (designed as messaging to the masses), vs what they will actually say in a Court where their would be consequences for that. My guess is that the actual defences presented will in essence be:
1. Anything Trump said is protected by the 1A, especially since it was ‘political speech’.
2. Even if not 1A, there was intent to break the law, just a lot of angry and hyperbolic speech. Maybe a bit of kicking ideas around, but Trump just accepted the legal advice he was given.
3. Oh, you mean the advice was bad and it was illegal? How awful! It’s the fault of those crazy and incompetent advisors Trump was so unlucky to have to rely on because of the deep state.
Of course what Trump is really counting on is that he will win the election, or failing him another Republican, and that that will mean the prosecution will be dropped or a pardon will be forthcoming.
Should 2 read “Even if not 1A, there was no intent to break the law”?
I’d say it’s more of a non sequitur than an incorrect statement.
That is, it’s true that not every violation of the Constitution is a criminal offense. (I might even say that most aren’t.) To give a slightly silly example, Article 2 requires that the President “shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient,” but nobody would claim that a President who refused to deliver a State of the Union could be criminally prosecuted.
To give a more common and practical example, government officials are frequently found to have violated someone’s Constitutional rights, but it’s not typically a crime. In fact, thanks to qualified immunity, there often isn’t even civil liability.
But then, the indictment doesn’t charge Trump with violating the Constitution, he’s charged with violating certain specific criminal statutes. The fact that he was also subverting the Constitution and attempting to stage a coup (or autogolpe if you prefer) is part of the motivation and part of why these criminal offenses should be taken seriously, but it’s not an actual element of the crime. So Lauro is engaging in some bullshit here.