Attorney Steven Sadow argues for tossing out the Georgia election interference case due to Trump's “protected speech.”

But for protected First Amendment speech, President Trump would not be charged in RICO or the other counts. Take out the protected speech and you don't have an underlying basis for which to charge him. And since that violates the Constitution as applied to the charges here and his speech here and his position here, this is ripe for a constitutional challenge. One step further, if it's not right now and we get into intent, when does the court determine that? Do you determine that after we have a trial? I think it would be the directed verdict stage. Well, would it? That's a sufficiency of evidence. With all inferences in favor of the state. That's a whole question. I mean, do we go through the whole trial? God forbid there should be a conviction. And then we go back to try and determine as applied. I'm suggesting the reason it's right now and the reason why we don't even get to a trial is because it's unconstitutional to force an accused, be it the president of the United States, former president or anyone else, to stand trial on protected speech.