The following podcast contains advertising to access an ad-free version of the LawFair

podcast become a material supporter of LawFair at patreon.com slash LawFair, that's patreon.com slash

LawFair. Also check out LawFair's other podcast offerings, rational security, chatter, LawFair

no bull and the aftermath. So there's a case called United States versus West. It's a

2004 case in the DC circuit. And the court held that the advice of council defense actually

does not hold water when the council in question is a co-conspirator. Now the indictment

doesn't make clear if East Mint and Giuliani are co-conspirators, unindicted co-conspirators,

but we can make an educated guess that they are. And so both because there is this precedent

that tells us Trump's advice of council defense might not hold water because he followed

the advice of possibly a co-conspirator. And also because there were many more attorneys

that were saying you can't do this and you will fully ignore their advice and follow

the advice of two other people. It seems like this defense might not be the strongest for

his case. I'm Natalie Orpet, executive editor of LawFair, and this is the LawFair podcast

August 21st, 2023. It's only been a few weeks since special council Jack Smith and

Dited Donald Trump. But both he and his lawyers have already been previewing their case

of defense, that he was protected by the First Amendment, that he relied on the advice

of council, and the glue holding it all together, that he really believed what he was saying.

We recently published two articles on the subject in LawFair. The first, by LawFair editor

and chief Benjamin Wittes and legal fellow Sarfin Denani, assesses Trump's likely defences.

The second, by LawFair senior editor Roger Parlov, argues that a jury may well see

through them. I sat down with Ben, Sarifin, and Roger to talk through it all. It's the

LawFair podcast August 21st, 2023. Does it matter whether Trump believed his own lies?

...