before the jury. even if you were to have one or both of them testify, there is, as you say, this problem of literally keeping pat cipollone out of the room. that s not how you behave if you re trying to get to a good faith answer as to what the law is. you would have all the relevant people in the room. let s just think about how george bush or barack obama would have handled this situation where lawyers disagreed. you wouldn t go shopping and exclude the people whose advice, including your own white house counsel, were giving you. there s just a lot of factual problems with even the sliver of the allegations for which there is some reason to think there is legal advice that would not constitute advice of counsel. frank, thank you for your patience. let me get your thoughts on a few other aspects of the indictment, specifically trump s comments over the last few days. we talked about this many times.
to a foreign terrorist organization, even used for legitimate purposes, free up other resources for violence. so we have a different regime here, but that does not mean that there are no barriers on first amendment rights. as i just cased, that supreme court law, right? incitement to imminent unlawful activity. unlawful activity, viejs. fraud for example is not protected even though fraud contains a speech element. so part of what we are talking about when we re trying to address the domestic extremist threat is how do we use legal tools but also how do we counter it from a non-criminal perspective. and i think donell was really you know, i agree with everything he said in terms of what drives radicalization in the u.s., this feeling of being aggrieved, of victimhood. if others are doing better that must mean i m doing worse.
because in large part of the first amendment spt rights to free speech we do not designate domestic organizations as terrorist organizations. domestic organizations like all domestic-based americans and other individuals here in the u.s. have first amendment rights. foreign organizations do not have first amendment rights. and even though violence and incitement to imminent unlawful activity including violence, even though that is not executived under the first amendment, if wur talking about an organization, an organization made you do things that are first amendment protected and things that are not first amendment protected. and in the u.s. there s no way to do an actual that would raise issues about why you are penalizing the protected things even though you could penalize the unprotected things. whereas of course with a foreign terrorist organization our law doesn t concern itself with those distinctions and the thought is any resources that go
also former assistant director for counterintelligence at the fbi frank figliuzzi and washington investigations reporter jackie alemany. andrew, i ll start with you. i m no lawyer. i m not going to pretend to be a lawyer. but let s take lauro s comments here for one second. asking someone to violate the constitution sounds to me like you re asking them to break the law. well, that certainly is absolutely true. it is a separate issue whether they re violating a criminal law. and so, yes, if you ask somebody to violate the constitution, that is something that is a violation of law by definition because the constitution is one of our laws. whether it violates a criminal law depends on the criminal statutes involved. here, this isn t some technical violation. this isn t some arcane provision
this election. and i m going to tell you that there is blatant, outright fraud in the 2020 election. complete and total fraud you know it. you absolutely do know it. i m going to follow up with one more thing. georgia, and then you don t like for me to say that but i m not for the she s commence. for the record the president lost georgia by 779,000 votes in a state run by republicans. there have been multiple weekends. as mr. sterling indicated there, there were not thousands of voters in georgia. officials of only sound for such cases today. gabriel sterling joins us now. despite a lot of talk a few months ago about marjorie taylor greene modifying her more loony positions, here she was saying this stuff to your face for which he has no evidence whatsoever, and a body of counter evidence that is factual. as a loyal republican, doesn t concern you that a member of the house election integrity caucus no less is perpetuating these lies still? well, it s interesting,