Former FBI Special Agent Breaks Down the Impeachment Trial

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: So, I want to ask you. You said the most important witness is Trump. Well, his lawyer is going to start laying out their case tomorrow. And this is what he has said about the free speech argument that they’re trying to make.

DAVID SCHOEN, IMPEACHMENT ATTORNEY FOR DONALD TRUMP: It’s just a silly argument. It’s not tied to Donald Trump or his speech whatsoever. So, what they doing now a bit is going, but, well, you see, it’s not just that speech. He’s been inciting people, inflaming people. No, he’s been trying — rousing the American public to drain the swamp, whatever they call it on his side, to make a difference in this country. That’s what political speech is about.

AMANPOUR: Is that a compelling legal argument?

ASHA RANGAPPA, CNN LEGAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: No, that’s — that legal argument does not go anywhere, as a legal matter. The president of the United States, as a public official, is accountable for what he says. You can kind of make the analogy to employment law. If, in the course of your professional duties, you engage in particular kinds of speech, for example, hate speech or violent speech, you can be fired for it, and you don’t have a free speech argument. And so Trump — it would be the same as if he were advocating in favor of our adversaries or perhaps using racial slurs. I mean, if he were engaging in speech that were destructive and not reflective of his office, he can be held liable for it. This isn’t a criminal trial. He’s not going to be sent to jail. And so the threshold for whether his — I think the threshold here is causality. It’s not that he can say whatever he wants. It’s that, is what he said, did he cause foreseeable harm? Did he intend that harm? And I think that, in terms of making that link, the House managers are doing a great job. And I will add that they have pointed out that, even after this violence occurred, Trump did not use his position and his authority to stop it from continuing, despite repeated pleas to do so. His lawyers have an uphill battle. I think their free speech argument is the best they can do. But it’s not — it doesn’t hold water, as a legal matter.