[UPDATE, X2: Second, AND THIRD Brief Filed.] Several Esteemed Professors Of Constitutional Law Explain How Specious Tangerine's Position Is, In DC...

UPDATED: 07.09.2021 @ 4:00 PM EDT -- A second group of renown law professors filed another amicus brief overnight, arguing the more narrow question that the First Amendment actually allows the case to go forward, under a Civil War / Reconstruction Era voting rights intimidation statute, originally called the Klan Act. It is 28 excellent pages. You may read it, here. End update No. 1.

Update No. 2: Here is a well-argued third amicus brief, also explaining that Tangerine cannot escape liability here.

In sum, I'll leave it to the readership to parse all 21 pages of the originally-filed fine argument made here by highly-regarded amici.

But this much I'll quote -- for it will echo clear as a bell, in the morning -- in our history, when the abuses of the office are recounted, some decades from now, in US history books, as they relate to 45's end of term lawlessness (and near insurrectionist actions):

. . .Trump frequently characterized the election as having been “rigged,” id. ¶ 33, and he repeatedly signaled his support for those who threatened to use violence to challenge the election results, see, e.g., id. ¶ 31 (referring to his supporters as the “Trump Army”); id. ¶ 32 (praising supporters who swarmed a Biden campaign bus and nearly caused a car accident, saying, “These patriots did nothing wrong”); id. ¶ 30 (refusing to denounce a white supremacist group called the Proud Boys and instead instructing them to “stand back and stand by”). In December 2020, he applauded the occurrence of “Stop the Steal” rallies across the country, tweeting, “WE HAVE JUST BEGUN TO FIGHT!!!” Id. ¶ 54. And in promoting the January 6, 2021 rally, he tweeted that there would be a “[b]ig protest in DC on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!” Id. ¶ 55. . . .

[Trump said "Y]ou’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.” Id. ¶ 85 (emphasis omitted). After the crowd began chanting, “Storm the Capitol,” “Invade the Capitol Building,” and “Take the Capitol right now,” he declared, “Something is wrong here, something is really wrong, . . . and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” Id. ¶ 88.

These alleged actions were “unrelated to any of [Trump’s] official duties as President of the United States,” Jones, 520 U.S. at 686, and therefore fell well “outside the outer perimeter” of his presidential responsibilities, Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. at 756. The president’s power to act “must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.” Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 585 (1952). . . .

[T]here is plainly no constitutional or legislative authority for a president to encourage the violent disruption of a congressional proceeding. . . . Indeed, Trump took the alleged actions not as president, but as a candidate running for president who, having lost the election, was trying to prevent the democratic process mandated by the Constitution from playing out. Just as Trump would not be eligible for absolute immunity if he were a failed candidate for president who refused to leave office after his term, he is not eligible for absolute immunity as a failed candidate who, for his personal gain, allegedly encouraged the use of force to prevent Congress from certifying the election results. . . .

Now you know. Do read all 21 pages. This is a history lesson unfolding before our very eyes, in the federal courts, in DC and Florida and New York. Onward.

नमस्ते