Trump’s Falsehoods Pushed the Boundaries of Presidential Communication. Their Role in His Legal Defense Is Crucial.

Barack Obama, recognizing the immense impact of a president’s words, used to exercise caution in his language, mindful that his speech could influence military actions or financial markets.

In contrast, his successor, Donald Trump, showed no such restraint.

Now, Trump is facing multiple criminal charges across four separate indictments, two of which stem from his unfounded claim that he didn’t lose the 2020 presidential election to Democrat Joe Biden. The issue of Trump’s habitual falsehoods and his right to express them has become the focal point of his legal defense.

Although the presidency holds numerous explicit powers, one of the most significant is implicit—the power of rhetoric. This tool is often wielded to incite action, unite the nation for foreign missions, console the public after tragedies, or encourage sacrifice for the greater good.

Jennifer Mercieca, a communications scholar at Texas A&M University, refers to presidential rhetoric as a “second Constitution,” reshaping the balance of power without requiring a constitutional overhaul. This transformation centers the president as the core of the political system.

Trump’s stance essentially asserts that his presidential words held no unique weight, and he was merely exercising his right to free speech.

Wayne Fields, an expert on presidential rhetoric at Washington University in St. Louis, noted, “Most presidents recognize the significance of language—both written and spoken. While not all of them excel in this area, few have shown the level of disregard that Trump displayed.”

Trump’s legal team, as he faces criminal charges across different jurisdictions, contends that his free speech rights form the crux of their defense strategy, particularly in the context of the January 6th case. One of Trump’s attorneys, John Lauro, emphasized to CNN that special counsel Jack Smith’s case is an “extraordinary criminal prosecution of First Amendment rights.”

Yet Smith anticipated this argument when constructing the federal indictment against Trump for his role in the Capitol riot. The document’s second page highlights that, as an American citizen, Trump possessed the right to publicly discuss the election and even make false claims about fraud and victory.

However, Smith argues that Trump’s behavior, not just his words, constitutes prosecutable offenses.

This distinction becomes crucial considering Trump departed from the traditional standards of presidential communication during his tenure.

Dan Pfeiffer, former White House communications director under Obama, stressed the immense power of the president’s words, capable of influencing markets and international relations. This level of linguistic precision, Pfeiffer noted, marked a significant shift from Obama’s campaign days.

While the potency of a president’s direct communication is undeniable, this wasn’t always the case. Mercieca highlighted that until the early 20th century, presidents rarely communicated directly with the public, primarily engaging in intergovernmental and written exchanges.

However, this changed with presidents like Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, who established direct communication with the public, shifting political influence to the White House and diminishing Congress’s role as a direct representative of voters.

Lindsay Chervinsky, a presidential historian, observed that the “bully pulpit” is a unique presidential tool, demanding careful and intentional use due to its substantial impact.

The likes of Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan were cautious of how their words resonated internationally. Roosevelt and Franklin Delano Roosevelt utilized language to promote agendas and soothe anxious publics.

And then there was Trump.

His presidency was marked by a barrage of falsehoods, some minor but many serious, often repeated. He would engage in name-calling and derogatory remarks towards political opponents. On January 6, 2021, Trump’s language took on a combative tone that was hard to ignore. During testimony before the January 6 committee, Mercieca pointed out Trump’s repeated use of the word “fight” contrasted with his single mention of “peacefully” in his speech before the Capitol riot.

The federal charges against Trump focus on his actions, excluding incitement. Legal experts highlight that his conduct, not his speech, is under scrutiny.

While Trump continues to advance his political ambitions, his election falsehoods and rehashing of the 2020 election remain central in Republican primaries, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. A recent poll found that 57 percent of Republicans believe Biden’s election was illegitimate.

Chervinsky acknowledged that Trump possesses an acute understanding of how his language resonates with his supporters, attributing this to a mix of intention and instinct.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about Presidential Rhetoric

More about Presidential Rhetoric

• [Source 1: “Trump’s lies tested limits of the bully pulpit. His right to say them is at core of criminal defense”](Add Source Link)
• [Source 2: “Presidential Rhetoric: What It Is and Why It Matters”](Add Source Link)
• [Source 3: “Trump’s Legal Defense Strategy Focuses on His Free Speech Rights”](Add Source Link)
• [Source 4: “The Power and Limits of Presidential Rhetoric”](Add Source Link)
• [Source 5: “Understanding the ‘Bully Pulpit’ in Presidential Communication”](Add Source Link)