That's true.

I want to be clear, though, that we have absolutely no problem with President Trump having pursued his belief that the election was being stolen or that there was fraud or corruption or unconstitutionality.

We have no problem at all with him going to court to do it.

And he did, and he lost.

In 61 straight cases, the big lie was refuted, devastated and demolished in federal and state courts across the land, including by eight judges appointed by President Donald Trump himself.

The problem was when the president went from his judicial combat, which was fine, too intimidating and bullet bullying state election officials and state legislators, and then finally, as representative Cheney said, summoning a mob, assembling a mob and then lighting the match, Um, for an insurrection against the union when he crossed over from nonviolent means.

No matter how ridiculous or absurd, that's fine.

He's exercising his rights to inciting violence.

That's what this trial is about, and we heard very little of that from the presentation of the president's lawyers.

They really didn't address the facts of the case at all.

There were a couple propaganda reels about Democratic politicians that would be excluded in any court in the land.

They talked about the rules of evidence.

All of that was totally irrelevant to the case before us.

Whatever you think about it, it's a relevant.

And we'll be happy, of course, to adjust the First Amendment arguments, too.