The Justice Department’s latest indictment against former President Donald Trump made some waves on the Sunday morning circuit. At center stage was former Vice President Mike Pence, who has been struggling to build something resembling an adequate presidential primary campaign.

The prosecution seems to believe that having Pence testify in the upcoming legal proceedings against the Orange Man What Is Bad™ might deliver exactly what they need to put him behind bars. On the flip side, Trump’s defense team seems confident that the former vice president’s possible testimony will work in their client’s favor. Which side is right? The answer might be somewhat complicated.

Attorney John Lauro, who is representing Trump, indicated that he would relish the opportunity to cross-examine Pence. During an interview on ABC’s “This Week” with host George Stephanopoulos, he stated that the former vice president would “be one of our best witnesses at trial” and that if Pence “testifies consistent with his book, then President Trump will be acquitted.”

Trump attorney John Lauro tells @GStephanopoulos he “cannot wait” to cross-examine former Vice Pres. Pence, says Pence will “eliminate any doubt that Pres. Trump firmly believed that the election irregularities had led to inappropriate results.” https://t.co/J9vkffLtvf pic.twitter.com/3s77AAQ8wu

— This Week (@ThisWeekABC) August 6, 2023

Meanwhile, Pence was on CBS News’ “Face the Nation” dishing on his interactions with Trump in the aftermath of the 2020 election. During the interview, he contradicted claims made by the former president’s legal team that he asked him to only delay the counting of electoral votes so that audits of state results could take place. Pence responded:

Major, that’s not what happened. And, you know, as I wrote about in my book, as I’ve spoken about very openly, and- and frankly, as is recounted in aspects of the pleadings that were filed this week. From-from sometime in the middle of December, the president began to be told that I had some authority to reject or return votes back to the states. I had no such authority. No vice president in American history had ever asserted that authority and no one ever should.

Your viewers can go to Article II of the Constitution and see that it’s very clear. It says that the vice president, as president of the Senate, should preside over the House and Senate in a joint session, and that the Electoral College votes shall be opened and shall be counted. There was no discretion ever given to the vice president in history, nor should there ever be. I had no right to overturn the election and Kamala Harris will have no right to overturn the election when we beat them in 2024.

The Justice Department is currently charging Trump with obstruction, conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights. Each of these charges is related to Trump’s claims that the 2020 election was stolen and his alleged efforts to overturn the results and remain in power.

Pence recalled a conversation with Trump just before Christmas in which the former president asked Pence what they should do about the election. The former vice president said:

I remember, I looked at him and I said, “Look, let all the lawsuits play out, let the Congress do their work to consider objections,” but I said at the end of the day, if the election goes the other way, I said we ought to take a bow, we ought to travel around the country. And I remember, I remember, the president is standing in front of his desk, listening very intently to me, and I’ll never forget the way he just kind of pointed at me as if to- as if to say, that’s worth thinking about. But I don’t know what was in his mind at the time.

It’s that last comment that Trump’s defense might be looking for. Much of the prosecution’s case is dependent on the idea that the former president believed his claims about the stolen election were actually false. However, some have cast doubt on whether the former president could be convicted even if he did not believe his claims about the election. In a recent op-ed, legal scholar Jonathan Turley wrote:

Under our current understanding of free speech, Democrats ranging from Hillary Clinton to Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) were engaged in protected speech when they called Trump illegitimate and challenged the certification of his win, even though they knew that their challenges were completely meritless. Yet this indictment suggests that Trump engaged (and indeed still engages) in criminal conduct by insisting that the 2020 election was stolen. Presumably, it also follows that tens of millions of Americans holding that same view are also involved in spreading the same false claims underlying the indictment.

Pence noted that he does not plan to testify in the case against Trump. However, he also said he will “respond to the call of the law if it comes, and we’ll just tell the truth,” which seems to indicate that if the prosecution forces the issue, the former vice president won’t resist.

So, how is this going to play out?

It is possible that Pence’s testimony might provide damaging evidence against the former president. However, if it only involves him repeating claims he already made publicly, his testimony might not be as effective a weapon as the prosecution and Democrats are hoping.

Moreover, if the prosecution fails to deliver on its promise to prove that Trump believed his claims about the 2020 election were false, then it will probably lose on at least some of the charges. So far, it appears the case against the former president is about as flimsy as a cobweb in a windstorm. However, you never know what these people might have up their slimy little sleeves.