Thread by @Teri_Kanefield

Rep Neguse now debunks Trump's "First Amendment defense."

Trump's defense is based on
🔹misreading the law
🔹distorting the Constitution, and
🔹misconstruing the facts.

First: the "fact" Trump asserts is that he was an ordinary guy giving a politically unpopular speech.

1/

The First Amendment doesn't allow a president to incite an insurrection based on the lie that the election was rigged against him. (Duh, right?)

The Defense doesn't actually claim the president can do that.

They say Trump didn't do any of this.

2/

From Rep. Raskin: In addition to Trump's First Amendment defense having nothing to do with the facts, the First Amendment can't be a defense to impeachment.

First problem: He was a public official with lots of power.

3/

There are things a private citizen can say without fear of prosecution under the First Amendment, for example, swearing allegiance to a foreign power.

The president can't do that without risking the ruin of the Republic.

4/

Trump himself fired people who said things that he didn't like. A teacher who suddenly advocates totalitarianism can be fired.

(Aside, the way Trump tries to distort the First Amendment always makes me go 😡💣)

5/

Raskin is reminding everyone that this is not a criminal trial, so standards like Brandenburg don't apply, but actually, in fact NOBODY can do what Trump did without facing criminal prosecution.

What's the Brandenburg test? So glad you asked. See:
law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenbur…

6/

Raskin: The purpose of the First Amendment is truth-seeking and to protect all of our rights.

Trump was actually trying to undermine these rights.

So the idea that the First Amendment protects a president's attack on the Constitution is upside down.

7/

Summary of what Raskin is saying: Trump incited an attack on Congress, attacked the freedom of speech of Congress on Jan. 6, and sought to undermine the sovereignty of the people.

It is therefore absurd for Trump to accuse Congress of trying to infringe HIS rights.

8/