Interactive Communication

 First, this is the Reader’s Digest (ask your grandpa!👴🏻) version of Trump’s lawyer’s argument with the Court of Appeals this morning:

Trump lawyer unable to give any answer for how and whether the court can balance 1st Amendment interests v. Interest in ensuring integrity of trial proceedings and protecting witness from intimidation.

And this is the essence of the argument Trump was trying to make that every word out of Trump’s mouth is “core political speech”* (i.e., the most protected speech under First Amendment jurisprudence).

The implicit argument (concession) Trump’s lawyer is making is that threats and inciting violence is the core of Trump’s political strategy (which is why he considers it “political speech”). Another consequence of a major political party embracing domestic terrorism

I don’t think that conclusion was lost on the panel. I’ll be surprised if it doesn’t show up in the opinion.

*I still don’t think it comes anywhere close. Trump is calling for violence against government officials and employees in order to preserve his liberty and political aspirations. How close does he have to come to calling for the violent overthrow of the government before it stops being an “interactive communication concerning political change”? I know that’s not the immediate issue before the Court now, but it’s certainly an issue in any analysis for a balancing test on Trump’s “core political speech.”