Trump’s attorney, John Lauro, alleged that Trump’s prosecution was orchestrated by the Biden administration and insisted that having fake electors is a standard procedure. However, CNN’s Dana Bash swiftly countered these claims. This interaction raises questions about how federal prosecutors might dismantle such a defense in court.
Lauro aimed to pin the blame on Biden, stating, “The protective order proposed by the Biden administration is merely a tactic to withhold pertinent non-sensitive information that they might have, which could possibly support –”
Interrupting him, Bash clarified, “This isn’t initiated by the Biden administration but by the independent special counsel –”
Video of the claim of a Biden conspiracy:
Lauro responded, “For clarity, the independent counsel, or rather the special counsel, needs approval from Merrick Garland to proceed. Joe Biden, in November 2022, expressed his desire to see Trump prosecuted and removed from the race — so it implicates the Biden administration.”
With precision, Bash retorted, “I must interject here. There’s no concrete evidence of Joe Biden’s involvement. And yes, it’s termed as ‘special counsel.’ Please stay on topic.”
In a subsequent attempt, Lauro argued the commonality of fake electors, stating, “Regarding the topic of electors, alternate electors are a standard procedure every four years. The Senate parliamentarian even confirmed to Vice President Pence that they consistently receive alternate elector submissions. However, none of these were counted because VP Pence was fully cognizant of the situation –”
Bash countered, “The reason they weren’t counted is that Mike Pence saw through and rejected the strategy.”
Lauro tried to further his point, emphasizing, “Precisely! This is simply how our political process operates. However, deception was at play–”
If these interactions on the Sunday shows offer a preview of Trump’s defense strategy, it appears weak at best. The overarching theme seems to be suggesting a Biden-led conspiracy and asserting no legal violations. The defense’s rhetoric eerily echoes Trump’s previous claims, such as his “perfect” phone call to Ukraine and accusations against Barack Obama in 2016.
Trump’s defense strategy seems rooted in denial. Given Dana Bash’s effortless fact-based rebuttals, legal experts like Jack Smith are likely gearing up for a rigorous court battle.