Former Trump Lawyer Suggests Its Sometimes Ok To Try To Overturn Elections

Former Donald Trump lawyer Tim Parlatore went on CNN this week to talk about his former client getting the target letter from special prosecutor Jack Smith, and his defense of his former client was absolutely bonkers. Parlatore said that obstructing an election (which Trump will likely be charged for) might sometimes be ok, and that the whole thing is open to interpretation. While we understand this defense to be stupid, Parlatore is actually laying out the only possible defense Trump's team could offer in court, as Ring of Fire's Farron Cousins explains.

Check out our merch by visiting our store

Subscribe to our podcast

Become a member today!

Support us by becoming a monthly patron on Patreon, and help keep progressive media alive!

Spread the word! LIKE and SHARE this video or leave a comment to help direct attention to the stories that matter. And SUBSCRIBE to stay connected with Ring of Fire's video content!

Support Ring of Fire by subscribing to our YouTube channel

Be sociable! Follow us on:

*This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription software company, so please excuse any typos.

This week after, of course, Donald Trump announced he was the target of Jack Smith's January 6th investigation. Former Trump lawyer, Tim Parla tore, was invited for some reason to go on CNN and offer his assessment of this target letter. And Parl somehow managed to offer the most bonkers excuse where he seemed to suggest that sometimes trying to overturn the results of elections is totally okay. Parlet Tore was asked by c n n host, Caitlyn Collins, quote, your former client is responding tonight. Uh, this is what he said, you know, so they can cheat on an election, but if somebody wants to question the cheating, they want to call you a conspiracy theorist and all these other things. These people are sick, Tim, when, when you hear that, I mean, what happened was way more than just questioning the results, right? Parl to, without missing a beat, still apparently in Defend Trump mode said this.

Well, and a lot of that is a matter of perspective because, you know, certainly on one hand you could sit there and say, all these steps were taken to overturn the results of the election. Put on the other hand, if he truly believed that there was fraud, whether you agree with him or not, if he truly believed it, and if his team truly believed it, what steps would you expect them to take? You know, you would expect them to take the steps of saying, Hey, let's slow down the process and let's try to verify these things, kick it back to the states to make sure that the election will results are accurate. So it is definitely one of those things where it's, it's not clear. It, it can be interpreted multiple ways. It's not, it's not as simple as Watergate where they break into a hotel room and it's a clear crime, and anybody on either side of the aisle can see that.

Here, it's much more open to interpretation. Oh, oh, Tim, I, I had given you too much credit in the past by saying you were a competent lawyer because this is gobbledygook. I mean, legally speaking, this is gobbledygook. Like, well, I mean, did he break the law? That's open for interpretation, right? I mean, it's not like Watergate where they did break the law. This could be, you know, if they actually thought it was real, then hey, you know, everything they did is justified. Right? Now, technically, and this is what's important parlor's argument, there is not as crazy as you would think because that is actually a valid legal defense in this particular instance. If Trump and if his team genuinely believed that the election was stolen, then yeah, like we would take those steps, we would do these things. Problem they now have, of course, is that we have multiple different reports that have confirmed that Donald Trump's own campaign commissioned investigations. They commissioned studies to find the fraud, and both of those studies that Trump's team paid millions of dollars for came back and said, there is no fraud. The DOJ looked at it and they said, there's no fraud. So you cannot argue in court in front of a judge and a jury that Trump genuinely believed these things because his own people that he paid money to find the fraud, told him, thanks for the money, but there ain't no fraud.

But Tim also did something far more important here. As a former member of Donald Trump's legal defense team, he laid out the argument that the defense is gonna make, and as stupid as it sounded saying it on cnn, it's gonna sound even dumber.