federal cases. because there are other cases and matters including manhattan. there is the decisions made by fani willis out of the fulton county d.a. s office what they will do, and that would not essentially immunize him from that. but we re talking about political speech. as a talk point? this actually means something in the law. it doesn t mean that any time a politician speaks, it becomes political speech that no one can touch. there are some very clear reasons as to why we want to protect and be very mindful of protecting political speech. we do not want people thrown into jail because they went against the king. we remember those well, i don t personally remember, but we remember reading about when history i do. no you do not, jamie gangel. thinking about all these aspects of it. notion of political speech essentially means you can certainly address your grievances. you can criticize the government. you re entitled to your opinion, but not the facts that are converted in
out about a half hour from 2016 on, that period of saying trump is not a legitimate president. we need to resist. all the resistance movement, and all those things and contesting his presidency from the outset. the articles in the washington post saying trump needs to be impeached today, and on and on and on. that s what s going to be fed. i m not saying it s correct. that s what s being fed to americans. and that, i know our legal experts think this is a well crafted legal document. i m sure it is. but to most americans, it s white noise. i disagree that the most americans don t remember that the capitol was storm and that false electors were put up. i agree. the january 6th part, i don t disagree with. but there is a disconnect. this is not a january 6th indictment if you read it. this is about a fake elector scheme. this is about storming the castle. no it isn t. they re going to throw the issue not just the speech is the fact that they tried to overturn it. congress
time in the campaign. oftentimes not oftentimes, but sometimes what they say is not true. and they re not prosecuted. but i do think it is true that the first amendment does not protect all speech. and it does not protect conspiracy to engage in fraud. and then at the end of the day, you know, how is donald trump going to respond to that, if he does? i m assuming he won t take the stand. so it s really puzzling to me how that s going play out with respect to the defense. of course, the burden is on the prosecution. there is no question about that. but i think ujack smith has done a pretty good job laying out the evidence here. i think as attorney general barr indicated, i think there is more that jack smith has that s going to be presented at trial. and the question is how what is the defense going to be? donald trump it seems to me will be the most the best witness