Now to Georgia, where the Trump team was back in court, fighting to get election interference charges brought against him by Fannie Willis dropped.

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.

It's not just that he lied over and over and over again. It's that each of those was employed as part of criminal activity with criminal intentions.

Join me now, Saul Weisenberg, former Deputy Independent Counsel and Fox News contributor, and Mike Davis, former law clerk for Justice Gorsik and the founder and President of Article 3 Project.

Mike, we heard the arguments today in front of the judge.

The defense made the argument this has protected First Amendment political speech.

Now, the prosecution is making the argument, No, it's part of a conspiracy, a criminal conspiracy. It seems to me that that all comes down to some ability to prove knowing or intent that whatever was said, the speaker, in this case, Donald Trump and his fellow defendants, knew what they were saying was false.

Well, yeah, this Fulton County DA, Fannie Willis, charged Trump and 18 others with a RICO conspiracy. But the problem is it is not illegal to object to a presidential election. It's allowed by the Electoral Count Act of 1887. Democrats objected to Republican wins in 1968, 2000, 2004, and 2016, we don't see Al Gore and John Kerry and Hillary Clinton in prison. It's also protected by the First Amendment to object to a presidential election. The only place in the world where it's illegal to object to a presidential election is a place like China and North Korea, and now Washington, DC, and Atlanta.

But free speech, political speech, the First Amendment, Saul, that's at the core of so many of these cases.

That's not just at the core of the Georgia case, that's the Jack Smith case as well, the insurrection case in Washington, DC.

That's what I find disturbing about these cases. Basically, it's clear that they must have looked, I'm talking about particularly in DC, they must have looked at the seditious conspiracy statute, they must have looked at the incitement statute and realized precisely because of strong 70-year tradition of First Amendment law, free speech law, that it would have been virtually impossible to convict former President Trump. They've gone on these other theories that come perilously close to convicting somebody and indicting them based on a thought crime, saying, in essence, you claimed you won the election when we know that you really knew you lost the election. I think it's a pretty flimsy theory, but I think it's going to be very difficult to knock these motions out at this stage in the proceedings, even though I thought Steve Sadao, Trump's lawyer, did a phenomenal job today.

You're referencing in Georgia, this is a pre-trial argument. It's probably still going to go to fact finding within a trial.

But real quick, to your point, it all feels very flimsy. It is flimsy if we presume that the end result is supposed to be justice in a courtroom. But I've been of the opinion the process is the punishment. Dragging him into a courtroom for all these various cases in and of itself becomes the punishment.

Absolutely. Absolutely. As the prosecutors or want to say, even when they lose a case, You didn't do the time, but you took the ride.

Right. It's also that way in civil trials as well. It's like, Oh, that's why people settle out of court. I don't want to deal with the punishment that is the process of our justice system.

Mike, quick left-hand turn here, but That's the case that caught my attention. The Justice Department, or is it... Yeah, they've asked Google to turn over the viewers of a video. Reports from Forbes say the feds ordered Google to reveal the identities of certain viewers to track down some who were suspects for buying Bitcoin for cash. Here's the...

This is the description of the report.

Undercover agent sent links of YouTube tutorials to a user, then asked Google for the information of who had viewed the videos.

Been watched like 30,000 times.

They wanted names, address, telephone numbers, and users of Google account activity. They wanted the IP address of those who didn't have a Google account and watched the videos.

A, sounds like entrapment, Mike.

But B, it's not even about what you say anymore. It's about what you hear and what you see.

Yeah, this is troubling. I mean, it sounds like an illegal and constitutional general warrant. If you want to have the government get information from people, you go to a court with particularized information, particular allegations that a crime has been committed or probable cause that a crime has been committed. I don't see that in this particular instance.

Forget the judicial system for a moment. The cultural climate that is antagonistic to free speech seems to be, for me, a watermark here, a moment in American history.

Saul, Mike, thank you so much.

Hey, Sean Hannity here. Hey, click here to subscribe to Fox News YouTube page and catch our hottest interviews and most compelling analysis. You will not get it anywhere else.