Donald Trump’s authorized staff is characterizing his indictment within the particular counsel’s 2020 election interference investigation as an assault on the previous president’s proper to free speech.

But the case will not be merely about Trump’s lies but additionally in regards to the efforts he took to subvert the election, prosecutors say.

The early contours of a possible authorized and political protection started to emerge within the hours after the costs had been unsealed, with protection lawyer John Lauro accusing the Justice Department of getting “criminalized” the First Amendment and asserting that his consumer had relied on the recommendation of attorneys round him in 2020.

He additionally indicated he would look to gradual the case down regardless of prosecutors’ pledge of a speedy trial.

But consultants say there’s little authorized advantage to Trump’s First Amendment claims, significantly given the breadth of steps taken by Trump and his allies that prosecutors say remodeled mere speech into motion in a failed bid to undo the election.

Those efforts, prosecutors wrote within the indictment, amounted to a disruption of a “bedrock function of the United States federal government: the nation’s process of collecting, counting, and certifying the results of the presidential election.”

“If all that this was about was lies or the alleged lies of President Trump, then he’d have a pretty good legal defense based on the First Amendment,” stated Floyd Abrams, a longtime First Amendment legal professional.

He continued: “But the theory of the indictment is that the speech of the president and the falsehoods of the president were part of a general effort to steal the election.”

But additionally they stated the conduct of Trump and 6 co-conspirators he’s alleged to have plotted with went far past speech.

“Saying a statement in isolation is one thing. But when you say it to another person and the two of you speak in a way and exchange information in a way that leads to action - that you want to take action to do something with that speech - then arguably it becomes unprotected,” stated Mary Anne Franks, a regulation professor at George Washington University.