Violations of the Constitution Aren’t Crimes, Trump Lawyer Says

WASHINGTON—Even if Donald Trump violated the Constitution when he pressured former Vice President Mike Pence not to certify the results of the 2020 election, that doesn’t make it a crime, Trump’s lawyer said Sunday.

“A technical violation of the Constitution is not a violation of criminal law,” John Lauro, a lawyer for Trump, told NBC News. He also argued that Trump’s expression of concerns about election irregularities was protected speech under the First Amendment.

Lauro’s comments came in response to a question from “Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd about Pence’s claim that Trump had asked him to violate the constitution in the aftermath of the 2020 election. Lauro later told The Wall Street Journal in a text message: “I did not acknowledge or concede that President Trump pressured VP Pence.”

A flurry of interviews and statements on Sunday from Trump and his legal team previewed how they might seek to defend the former president against federal conspiracy charges over his attempts to remain in power after he lost the 2020 election, a battle that is expected to loom over next year’s contest for the presidency.

“The government will never be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump had corrupt or criminal intent, and that’s what this case is about,” Lauro said Sunday on ABC. He said Trump firmly believed that election irregularities had led to inappropriate results.

Lauro added that he would seek to emphasize that point during questioning of Pence should he testify during the trial. Pence has said Trump asked him to violate the U.S. Constitution by pushing him not to certify the results of the 2020 election.

Trump and his lawyer both said on Sunday that they would pursue a change of venue for the case. “NO WAY CAN I GET A FAIR TRIAL, OR EVEN CLOSE TO A FAIR TRIAL, IN WASHINGTON, D.C.,” Trump wrote on his social-media platform Truth Social. “THERE ARE MANY REASONS FOR THIS, BUT JUST ONE IS THAT I AM CALLING FOR A FEDERAL TAKEOVER OF THIS FILTHY AND CRIME RIDDEN EMBARRASSMENT TO OUR NATION,” he added.

The Justice Department and Trump’s lawyers are expected to offer competing visions for how the legal process should play out in the federal trial over the charges. At a hearing last week, U.S. Magistrate Judge Moxila Upadhyaya gave both sides a week to propose trial dates.

Trump’s lawyers warned that there were significant volumes of documents in the case and indicated they wanted to take their time to review the material and prepare a defense. In response to questioning about timing, Lauro told CBS News on Sunday that “in 40 years of practicing law, on a case of this magnitude, I’ve not known a single case to go to trial before two or three years.”

Prosecutors are pressing for the quickest possible resolution of the case.

“This case will benefit from normal order, including a speedy trial,” prosecutor Thomas Windom urged the judge, referencing a right in the U.S. Constitution that gives defendants the opportunity to resolve charges against them in a “speedy” manner. Windom indicated that the government was prepared to hand over substantial volumes of documents to Trump’s legal team as soon as practicable.

On Friday, the former president said in another post on Truth Social: “IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU!” Concerned it may have been aimed at people connected to the case, special counsel Jack Smith’s team filed an objection in court. Prosecutors, saying Trump’s social-media posts raised the possibility he might improperly share evidence publicly, asked presiding Judge Tanya Chutkan

Trump could benefit by delaying the trial beyond the 2024 elections. If he wins the general election, he would regain control of the government and could put pressure on the Justice Department to drop the charges or stay the case until the end of his presidency. Or he could attempt a self-pardon, a move with no precedent that would plunge the country into uncharted legal territory.

Both sides are due back in court on Aug. 28 for a hearing in front of Chutkan. She is expected to set a trial date—a complicated endeavor given that Trump is already facing separate criminal trials in Florida and New York.

Lawyers are also hashing out the timing of the case against Trump in New York over hush money paid to a porn star and how it will work around the two existing federal cases.

As the two sides spar over that trial date, attention will turn to Georgia, where another indictment of Trump could be issued in the next two weeks. Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis,

Trump and others, including some former Republican Party leaders, are expected to face charges pertaining to efforts to overturn Trump’s narrow loss in the state, the first for a Republican presidential candidate since 1992. President Biden won by about 12,000 votes out of five million cast.

Trump and his supporters pressured state officials, including Gov. Brian Kemp and Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, both Republicans, to block Biden’s win. When Kemp and Raffensperger didn’t do so, he vilified them in speeches and called for their ouster. Trump and other White House officials also pressured Atlanta U.S. Attorney Byung J. Pak, Trump’s own appointee, to investigate the election, and forced him to resign when he refused.

A group of Republicans who claimed to be alternate electors met, without authority, in a closed-door meeting and declared Trump the winner. Recounts, audits and other investigations found no evidence to support Trump’s claims of widespread fraud. Court cases challenging Biden’s win failed. Those watching the case and who have worked closely with Willis say she will likely include violations of the state’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations, or RICO, act in the coming charges.

Willis has warned local law-enforcement leaders to prepare for the “significant public reaction” her announcement could trigger. Unlike the two federal trials that Trump is facing, he will have no power as president to self-pardon a state conviction in New York or Georgia.

A trial in the hush-money case brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is scheduled for March 25. Bragg said in a recent radio interview that while the judge had said the trial date was firm, if the judges in various jurisdictions conferred and the hush-money case trial date changed, he would follow the direction of the court. His office “won’t sit on ceremony in terms of what was charged first,” Bragg said.

—Cameron McWhirter and Corinne Ramey contributed to this article.

Write to Byron Tau at [email protected] and Amara Omeokwe at [email protected]

Corrections & Amplifications
Special counsel Jack Smith’s team filed an objection in court to a Truth Social post by Donald Trump. An earlier version of this story left out Smith’s name and title.