Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images
At the impeachment trial’s outset, lawyers for former President Donald Trump filed a 78-page brief at arguing that he should not be convicted by the Senate. Trump is charged with “inciting an insurrection” through various statements that allegedly encouraged the January 6 putsch targeting the US Capitol.
The brief’s primary arguments are constitutional. It claims that the Constitution does not permit an impeachment proceeding against a former official. And the brief also argues that Trump is immune from impeachment because the actions which led to that impeachment are protected by the First Amendment.
Could Trump face charges for speech before Capitol riot? Experts differ on Brandenburg impact
President Donald Trump. Photo from Shutterstock.com.
Could a 1969 case involving a Ku Klux Klan leader protect President Donald Trump from incitement charges in connection with the Jan. 6 riot on the U.S. Capitol?
Constitutional law experts offer differing opinions on the impact of the case,
Brandenburg v. Ohio.
The decision held that advocating the use of force is protected under the First Amendment unless it is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” The defendant in the case was Klan leader Clarence Brandenburg, who was charged under an Ohio law for advocating violence during a rally.