‘But Is It Really Open To Interpretation?’ CNN’s Kaitlan Collins Knocks Down Ex-Trump Attorney’s Defense of Election Crimes

CNN anchor Kaitlan Collins punctured ex-Trump attorney Tim Parlatore’s defense of his former client over new election crimes charges that appear imminent.

Ex-President Donald Trump announced Tuesday that he’s about to be indicted in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into conduct surrounding the 2020 election, and spoke about the election-related charges at a Fox News town hall event.

On Tuesday night’s edition of CNN’s The Source with Kaitlan Collins, Collins interviewed Parlatore — who left the team over internal drama but is still very much in Trump’s corner — and played him a snippet of Trump claiming “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.”

Collins asked Parlatore for his take, and went a few rounds over his response that it’s “a matter of perspective”:

COLLINS: Tim, when you hear that, I mean, what happened was way more than just questioning the results, right?

PARLATORE: Well, and a lot of that is a matter of perspective.

Because, certainly, on one hand, you could sit there, and say all these steps were taken, to overturn the results of the election.

But, on the other hand, if he truly believed that there was fraud, whether you agree with him or not, if he truly believed that, and if his team truly believed it, what steps would you expect them to take?

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 results are accurate.”

So, it is definitely one of those things, where it’s not clear. It can be interpreted multiple ways. I mean, it’s not like, it’s not as simple as Watergate, where you have the break into a hotel room, and it’s a clear crime. Anybody on either side of the aisle could see that. Here, it is much more open to interpretation.

COLLINS: But is it really open to interpretation, if you have governors that he was pressuring to do things? That Brian Kemp of Georgia, Doug Ducey of Arizona, they said that they couldn’t do?

He was trying to get Mike Pence to do things that Mike Pence said he couldn’t do?

Of course, we had Rudy Giuliani, and these other attorneys, going into states, and trying to get these slates of fake electors.

I mean, that’s more than just questioning. I mean, they had 60 court cases that were all thrown out.

PARLATORE: Well, a lot of those court cases were thrown out, on standing issues. And they were really thrown out pre-discovery.

As to pressuring people to do things that the people say they can’t do? That’s one of those things, where you really have to look into it, and say, were they really pressuring them to do something that is clear black letter law that they’re not allowed to do? Or again, is it one of those things, where it’s open to interpretation?

When it comes to Mike Pence? Obviously, there are different interpretations as to what his powers are, under the Electoral College Act. And it’s one of the reasons why Congress, then went to amend the Act, to kind of close it, and make it a lot more clear that his role is purely ceremonial. Because there was confusion, and there were different interpretations.

COLLINS: Well I don’t — I don’t think there —

PARLATORE: Just because you’re asking somebody to do something? I mean?

COLLINS: I —

PARLATORE: And people can disagree on this.

COLLINS: The people —

PARLATORE: That’s the thing, is that’s what makes it open to interpretation.

COLLINS: Most people, I would say, it’s not open to interpretation. I mean, Pence certainly did not believe that the attorneys that he talked to, didn’t believe that. I mean, John Eastman thought that I guess he says it’s open to interpretation.

Watch above via CNN’s The Source with Kaitlan Collins.