Trump's lawyers want to prove alleged election crimes were 'admirable': analysis

Former President Donald Trump’s lawyers will likely try to prove efforts to overturn the 2020 election and disrupt the peaceful transfer of power were “admirable,” political analysts at the New York Times contend.

Maggie Haberman and Alan Feuer published Thursday an expansive opinion piece detailing potential defenses Trump might use in the election interference trials he faces in 2024.

“Trump and his lawyers, at least so far, aren’t saying that he didn’t do what he’s accused of,” Haberman and Feuer write. “They are saying that he did it, but for benign, even admirable reasons.”

This attempt to “flip the script” would essentially reframe what special counsel Jack Smith calls election crimes as the proper conduct of a lame duck president, according to the analysis.

ALSO READ: What is Trump planning if he gets a second term? Be worried. Be really worried.

As alleged in the indictment, those efforts included pressuring state officials to confirm a slate of fake electors and demanding the Justice Department validate baseless claims of election fraud.

“Trump is trying to convince the court that the moves he made to cling to power were really ‘innocuous, perhaps even admirable conduct,’ as prosecutors put it,” Haberman and Feuer write.

“They contend that Trump is immune from the charges altogether because everything he did after losing the race was part of his presidential duties to preserve the 'integrity' of the election.”

Trump's legal team may try to argue his actions were protected by the First Amendment or blame "bad advice" and essentially throw his lawyers under the bus, they argue.

The Times writers note the latter tactic might prove challenging after video leaked of Jenna Ellis admitted to a disturbing comments made by deputy chief of staff Dan Scavino, whom she says told her "the boss is not going to leave."

When Ellis replied, "It doesn't quite work that way," she says Scavino replied, “We don't care."

Read the full analysis here.