There is no First Amendment defense to impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors.

The idea itself is absurd, and the whole First Amendment smokescreen is a completely irrelevant distraction from the standard of high crimes and misdemeanors.

Governing.

A president who has violated his oath of office, say a president publicly, on a daily basis, advocated replacing the constitution with the totalitarian form of government and urged states to secede from the union and swore an oath of loyalty to a foreign leader or foreign government.

Well, as a private citizen, you couldn't do anything about people using those words to advocate totalitarian ism, toe advocate secession from the union to swear an oath of personal loyalty to a foreign leader or foreign government, a country you couldn't that's totally protected.

If you tried toe, prosecute somebody for that, it's a prosecutor you would lose.

But it is simply inconceivable, unthinkable that the president could do any of these things, get up and swear an oath to foreign governments or leaders, advocate totalitarian ism, advocate secession and not be impeached for it.

It's just unthinkable.

Everyone should be clear.

There's nothing remotely exotic about what we're saying.

It should be common sense, and it happens all the time, By the way, including two cops and firefighters and people on the front lines happens all the time.

In fact, it happened countless times two people fired by President Trump for their statements or ideas about things, including on election fraud not long ago.

There are people in the government who lost their jobs because the president didn't like what they said or what they wrote.

It is a bedrock principle that nobody, nobody can incite a riot.

First Amendment doesn't protect it.

Key case.

Brandenburg vs Ohio There's no First Amendment protection for speech directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and likely to produce such action.

And for all the reasons you've heard, based on the voluminous, comprehensive, totally unrefuted and we think irrefutable.

But what were eager to hear our colleagues based all evidence you've heard?

And for all the reasons you've heard, um, that definition of proscribe a ble speech fits President Trump's conduct perfectly.