There is no First Amendment defense to impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors.

對於重罪和輕罪的彈劾，沒有第一修正案的辯護。

The idea itself is absurd, and the whole First Amendment smokescreen is a completely irrelevant distraction from the standard of high crimes and misdemeanors.

這個想法本身是荒謬的，整個第一修正案的煙幕是一個完全不相關的轉移，與高罪和輕罪的標準無關。

Governing.

管理：

A president who has violated his oath of office, say a president publicly, on a daily basis, advocated replacing the constitution with the totalitarian form of government and urged states to secede from the union and swore an oath of loyalty to a foreign leader or foreign government.

說一個總統違反了他的誓言，說一個總統每天公開地，主張用極權主義的政府形式取代憲法，敦促各州脫離聯邦，並宣誓效忠外國領導人或外國政府。

Well, as a private citizen, you couldn't do anything about people using those words to advocate totalitarian ism, toe advocate secession from the union to swear an oath of personal loyalty to a foreign leader or foreign government, a country you couldn't that's totally protected.

好吧，作為一個私人公民，你不能做任何事情的人使用這些詞來倡導極權主義主義，以倡導從聯盟中分離出來宣誓個人對外國領導人或外國政府的忠誠，一個國家，你不能，這是完全保護。

If you tried toe, prosecute somebody for that, it's a prosecutor you would lose.

如果你想起訴某個人，你會輸給檢察官。

But it is simply inconceivable, unthinkable that the president could do any of these things, get up and swear an oath to foreign governments or leaders, advocate totalitarian ism, advocate secession and not be impeached for it.

但是，總統能做這些事情，站起來向外國政府或領導人宣誓，鼓吹極權主義，鼓吹分裂，卻不是以而被彈劾，這簡直是不可想象的，不可思議的。

It's just unthinkable.

這簡直是不可想象的。

Everyone should be clear.

大家應該清楚。

There's nothing remotely exotic about what we're saying.

我們說的東西沒有什麼異國情調。

It should be common sense, and it happens all the time, By the way, including two cops and firefighters and people on the front lines happens all the time.

這應該是常識，而且經常發生，順便說一下，包括兩個警察和消防員以及前線的人都經常發生。

In fact, it happened countless times two people fired by President Trump for their statements or ideas about things, including on election fraud not long ago.

事實上，它發生了無數次兩個人被特朗普總統解僱，因為他們對事情的聲明或想法，包括不久前的選舉欺詐。

There are people in the government who lost their jobs because the president didn't like what they said or what they wrote.

政府裡有人因為總統不喜歡他們說的話或寫的東西而丟了工作。

It is a bedrock principle that nobody, nobody can incite a riot.

任何人、任何人都不能煽動暴亂，這是一個基本原則。

First Amendment doesn't protect it.

第一修正案並不保護它。

Key case.

關鍵案例：

Brandenburg vs Ohio There's no First Amendment protection for speech directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and likely to produce such action.

布蘭登堡VS俄亥俄州 對於旨在煽動或製造即將發生的違法行為並有可能製造這種行為的言論，沒有第一修正案的保護。

And for all the reasons you've heard, based on the voluminous, comprehensive, totally unrefuted and we think irrefutable.

而對於你們聽到的所有理由，基於大量的、全面的、完全沒有反駁的、我們認為無可辯駁的理由。

But what were eager to hear our colleagues based all evidence you've heard?

但是，什麼是渴望聽到我們的同事基於所有的證據，你聽說過嗎？

And for all the reasons you've heard, um, that definition of proscribe a ble speech fits President Trump's conduct perfectly.

出於你所聽到的所有原因，嗯，這個禁止言論的定義完全符合特朗普總統的行為。