During a series of media appearances last week, John Lauro, a leading attorney on Donald Trump’s defense team, made some curious rhetorical choices. For example, the lawyer repeatedly said his client urged then-Vice President Mike Pence to delay certification of the 2020 election results — which seemed problematic because special counsel Jack Smith’s indictment accuses Trump and his alleged co-conspirators of illegally pressing Pence to delay certification of the 2020 election results.
Andrew Weissmann, a longtime Justice Department veteran and an MSNBC legal analyst, took note of the on-air comments and concluded, “This was not a smart move.” The New Republic went further, publishing a report with a rather discourteous headline: “Donald Trump’s Lawyer Is Dumber Than Donald Trump.”
And while that was obviously harsh, Lauro did little to improve his reputation during multiple media appearances over the weekend. NBC News reported:
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 Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
Just so we’re clear, Lauro — the one who seemed to concede that Trump was responsible for a “technical violation of the Constitution” — is tasked with defending the former president, not prosecuting him.
The lawyer emailed a statement to NBC News after the interview, arguing that he “never said that President Trump committed a technical violation.” According to the network transcript, host Chuck Todd reminded Lauro that Trump asked Pence to violate the Constitution. The lawyer protested, insisted that Todd’s summary was “wrong,” and added, “A technical violation of the Constitution is not a violation of criminal law.”
Rep. Jamie Raskin, a former constitutional law professor, also appeared on “Meet the Press” and seemed unimpressed by Lauro’s attempted defense.
“First of all, a technical violation of the Constitution is a violation of the Constitution,” Raskin said. “Our Constitution is designed to stop people from trying to overthrow elections and trying to overthrow the government,” the Maryland Democrat continued.
After explaining that Trump “conspired to defraud the American people out of our right to an honest election,” Raskin said of Lauro’s rhetoric, “That is a deranged argument.”
As part of his media blitz — the lawyer’s five appearances are known in media circles as the “Full Ginsburg” — Lauro also argued:
- Trump is “immune from prosecution for acts that he takes in connection with … policy decisions” he made before leaving office.
- Trump’s directive in Georgia to “find” votes to reverse the results was “an aspirational ask.”
- Trump’s pressure on Pence to participate in an anti-election scheme was also a request made “in an aspirational way.”
I don’t mean to sound unsympathetic. If I were put in a position in which I had to defend the former president from charges related to his post-defeat wrongdoing, I might also struggle to come up with compelling arguments.
But if Lauro expects to win, he’ll almost certainly have to do better than this.
