"If Trump were accused of using fraud for pecuniary gain or of lying to federal investigators, there would be no free-speech problem."

"The complaint, however, focuses on the lies rather than any larceny or standalone crime. It is diffuse in saying that raising doubts over the election undermined the value or results of voting. Previous challenges have been made to certification of presidential elections with little basis (including by Democrats) and even alternative sets of electors have been submitted without criminal charges. This criminal intent is based on Trump being told by many people that the election was not stolen and he could not stop its certification.... However, Trump followed the advice of a second, albeit smaller, set of lawyers who told him there was a basis for challenging the election. That is not a crime. It is, in my view, protected political speech...."

Writes Jonathan Turley in "How Donald Trump’s Indictment Could Backfire on Joe Biden" (The Messenger).

"The very controversial linchpin used against Trump could conceivably be used against Biden.... For example, Biden conceded that his own White House counsel and trusted legal advisers uniformly told him that renewing a national eviction moratorium would be unconstitutional — but he listened instead to a Harvard law professor who reportedly assured him he had the authority. His eviction-ban order was quickly found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court...."

Turley applies this point to the Hunter Biden controversy, so go to the link if you want to read that.