According to Mediate, former Republican congressman and current Fox News host Trey Gowdy hosted a discussion on his show regarding the charges against former President Donald Trump and his defense strategy. He brought on two former prosecutors, Elliot Felig and Brett Tolman, to provide insights into the legal aspects of the case.
Gowdy first asked Felig about the potential role of former Vice President Mike Pence as a witness for the prosecution. Felig highlighted a key moment from the indictment where Trump allegedly told Pence he was “too honest” in relation to the contested election results. Felig suggested that this remark could be crucial for the prosecution, as it implies that Trump knew deep down that he was asking Pence to engage in dishonest actions. Felig pointed out that such a statement could be emphasized during the trial as evidence of potential wrongdoing.
The discussion then turned to Tolman, who expressed concerns about the indictment’s focus on criminal intent and the potential criminalization of advice given by Trump’s legal team. He noted that the case might be challenging due to the nature of the facts and the application of criminal statutes.
Gowdy further explored the question of whether the events could constitute criminal fraud rather than political wrongdoing. Felig responded by explaining that while free speech allows individuals to express false opinions, the issue arises when actions cross into the realm of fraud. He mentioned that the use of fake electors in state capitols, despite certifications by secretaries of state and governors, could be seen as fraudulent behavior. Felig drew an analogy to forging documents to illustrate the distinction between expressing false opinions and committing fraudulent actions.
The conversation on the show delved into the legal complexities surrounding the charges against Trump and the nuances of criminal intent and fraudulent actions. The former prosecutors provided their perspectives on key aspects of the case, shedding light on the potential arguments that could be presented by both the prosecution and the defense in the upcoming trial.
Yeah, that was a huge part of the indictment that if I’m the prosecutor on this case, I would lean heavily into this moment where Donald Trump allegedly said to Mike Pence, the problem is you were ‘too honest,’” began Felig, adding:
If I’m the prosecutor, I would hit that hard in my summation, because logically speaking, when would you say to someone, you’re too honest to do this unless you knew deep down the thing you were asking them to do was in fact, dishonest? Now, look, Donald Trump can go out at rallies and say Mike Pence is a RINO or a communist or, you know, knock yourself out, say that all day long. But good luck to the trial lawyer who has to stand up in front of a jury and say, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Mike Pence is not someone who takes the oath to tell the truth seriously.
All right, Eliot, Brett raises a good point. I mean, bad facts make for a tough law. I mean, that’s an old adage from our days in law school. And these are, I don’t say they’re bad facts, certainly interesting facts. You have fake electors, you have a pressure campaign on the vice president. You have calls to state election officials and you have January 6th — what happened at the Capitol. Eliot, Is it possible that something can be an awful, awful day for the country but still not meets the elements, as Brett noted, of a criminal statute?” Gowdy followed up.
“Sure. That certainly can be the case. The problem with the free speech argument is, look, Donald Trump wouldn’t be under indictment if he had had 50 or 100 or a thousand rallies where he simply said falsely, by the way, that the election was stolen or that there was widespread fraud, even though there’s no evidence of that, he wouldn’t be under indictment if he had just done that,” Felig replied, adding:
Where they crossed the line was when they had these fake electors gather in state capitols after the secretaries of state and the governors had signed certifications that Biden had won the state.
If I can make an analogy, Trey, I can come on your show and say I’m the real Trey Gowdy. I can run around the streets of New York or South Carolina and say I’m the real Trey Gowdy. But if I go home and I print out a fake driver’s license or a fake birth certificate, and I walk into your bank and I say, I’m Trey Gowdy and I’m here to take out all my money, then I’ve crossed the line into fraud, into forgery, into maybe an attempted grand larceny. I don’t think there was a good faith basis for electors to sign fake certificates or false certificates saying that they were duly elected and duly certified. And I don’t think there’s a good faith basis for saying to Mike Pence, you should take those certificates rather than the real ones.
