This is completely and dangerously wrong. Gross incompetence (to name jus tone example) is an impeachable offense notwithstanding the fact that it’s legal. https://twitter.com/joshmblackman/status/1347467547709493248

Impeachment is not a criminal trial. It is a political process to remove an incompetent, corrupt, or dangerous officer. This conflation of criminal standards with the impeachment process is misguided. Indeed, it’s part of what got us here.

The Brandenburg case is a 1st Amend case. It’s about what speech govt can *criminally* punish. It has abs no role in the question of whether the president’s actions constitute “high crimes or misdemeanors”—which is a political term referring to behaviors that endanger the people.

Under the theory of this blog post, Congress could not impeach a president for nuking Canada. Or for leaving the country and spending four years ensconced in an Austrian brothel—because those things aren’t illegal.

The 1st Amend (and the Brandenburg case) make it very VERY hard to prosecute PRIVATE CITIZENS for “incitement” bc we want to be VERY careful about jailing ppl for unpopular isnt abt private citizens. It doesn’t put people in jail.

It removes the dangerously unfit from office. Speech by the president of the United States is a matter of public concern far beyond anything a private citizen does. He can & should be held responsible for it in terms of losing his job.

If a cop or a school teacher or any other govt employee made a speech like this, that persons job should ABSOLUTELY be at risk. Same for the president of the United States. Moreso, bc his speech is more potentially dangerous.

“Can the President be impeached for engaging in speech protected by the Constitution as established by the courts?”

Yes. OF COURSE he can. He can be impeached for any behavior whatsoever that endangers the nation. That is why we have that process.

Of COURSE abuse of pwr or neglect of responsibility or gross incompetence or dangerous misbehavior is an impeachable offense. They’re high crimes bc it’s a crime agst the nation to use the office of prez in those ways. The prez—like any cop or file clerk—& lose his job for it.

The only real argmt to the contrary is that it wd make the prez “too dependent” on Congress. Impeachment, tho, was always a Parliamentary process & the Const embraced that. The Congs is elected by the ppl. It shd be (& is) the repository of this check & balance power.

Making impeachment a function of criminal law reduces the single most important check on the prez in the Constn. Impeachment is limited to removal from office precisely bc it is not a criminal process, but a political one.

If President Jones said “I’m going to declassify all of the nuclear codes next Tuesday and publish them on my Twitter feed,” Congress could not remove him from office under the theory of this blog post. That’s ludicrous.

(Forgive the many typos. Written in a state of shocked indignation.)