Bill Barr, the former US attorney general who served in Donald Trump's administration, has dismissed suggestions from the former president's lawyers that the January 6 indictment is an attack on free speech.
Trump lawyer John Lauro had argued after the indictment was announced on Tuesday that the charges were an effort to criminalise and censor free speech.
“This is an attack on free speech and political advocacy. And there’s nothing that’s more protected under the First Amendment than political speech,” Mr Lauro said.
Mr Trump was due to be arraigned at a federal court in Washington on Thursday to face charges stemming from efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.
Speaking to CNN on the eve of Mr Trump's court appearance, Mr Barr said First Amendment arguments from the former president's lawyers were invalid.
Mr Trump "can say whatever he wants. He can even lie. He can even tell people that the election was stolen, when he knew better”, Mr Barr said.
“But that does not protect you from entering into a conspiracy. All conspiracies involve speech and all fraud involves speech. So, free speech doesn't give you the right to engage in a fraudulent conspiracy.”
Attorney General Bill Barr leaves the White House after admitting no evidence of voter fraud
The right to freedom of speech falls under the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which states people are allowed to express themselves without fear of government interference.
However, there are certain types of speech unprotected by the First Amendment. These include fraud, incitement, fighting words and obscenity. The level of protection also depends on where it takes place.
Mr Barr also told TV broadcaster Kaitlan Collins he probably would not have approved the indictment over concerns it could lead to a slippery slope of criminalising legitimate political activity, the possibility of highlighting a double standard with the Justice Department's handling of the Hunter Biden investigation and the case's proximity to the 2024 election.
“But as a legal matter, I don't see a problem,” he said. "I think the US Department of Justice is not acting to weaponise the department by proceeding against the president of conspiracy to subvert the election electoral process."
