If you think that speech used in the performance of your duties (and in this case, those duties include ordering military action), is comparable to other speech

If you think that speech used in the performance of your duties (and in this case, those duties include ordering military action), is comparable to other speech then I'm not sure what I can reasonably tell you as that is a mind-blowing comparison to put forward. Additionally, the claim is that Trump enacted violence. Putin has not enacted violence, he's ordered it. Of course Putin is involved, and he's legally involved, and even though he's not enacting violence he is on the hook for that violence (or should be). I don't know anyone who wants free speech, even proper absolutists, who would make this case (that ordering military action is covered by free speech). Do you know of one? Now, please tell me which violence Trump was either actually involved in by actually committing violence or by ordering violence, and by "ordering" I mean making an official, legally backed order in the course of his duties as president and commander in chief, because I'd really like to know or even better, knock these silly claims on the head. I won't hold my breath waiting.