Trump lawyers cite immunity, wanting to throw out the cases on Jan. 6

[ad_1]

WASHINGTON – Lawyers for former President Donald Trump and his associates argued Monday that the incendiary statements of Trump and others on Jan. 6 before the unrest in the Capitol were protected speech and in accordance with their official duties.

In response to civil cases running parallel to Congress ’own inquiry on Jan. 6, Trump’s lawyers claimed he was acting in accordance with his official rights and had no intention of inciting violence when he called thousands of supporters that “march to the Capitol” and “fight. like hell” to disrupt the Senate’s certification of the 2020 election results.

“There’s not a single instance of someone successfully being able to sue a president for something that happened during his tenure,” Trump attorney Jesse Binnall said. “Absolute safety in the presidency is very important.”

The five-hour hearing in Washington before U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta has to do with Trump’s attempts to dismiss the civil charges. Brought in by Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell of California is one of the lawsuits against Trump and many others, along with Donald Trump Jr., Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, Alabama Republican Rep. Mo Brooks and right-wing group Oath Keepers, which charge Trump supporters with responsibility for the violent violation of the Capitol building.

Ad

The other lawsuits, brought by Democratic representatives and two Police Capitol officials, say Trump and Brooks’ statements on and before Jan. 6 essentially qualified as part of a political campaign, and were therefore fair. game for litigation. Plaintiffs are seeking damages for the physical and emotional damages they sustained during the insurrection.

“What he mentioned was a campaign issue, aimed at securing an election,” said Joseph Sellers, one of the attorneys representing Swalwell’s suit. “It’s a pure private act.”

Sellers said Trump’s statements were a frank and unambiguous call for political violence.

“It’s hard to think of a scenario other than the president traveling to the Capitol himself and bursting through the doors … but of course he did that through 3rd-party agents, through the crowd,” he said. .

Binnall argued that Trump’s calls to derail the Senate vote certification process are consistent with any executive’s right to comment or criticize a co-equal branch of government.

Ad

“A president always has the authority to speak to whether any of the other branches, in fact, can or should take action,” he said, referring to cases where former President Barack Obama has publicly commented on the decisions of the Supreme Court.

Binnall argued that Trump had already undergone a trial on Jan. 6-his second impeachment trial, in which he was acquitted by the then Senate with a Republican majority.

“That was their cure and they failed,” he said. “They’re not getting another bite of the apple here.”

Mehta repeatedly interrupted the lawyers on both sides with questions and challenges.

Giuliani’s lawyer Joseph Sibley at one point said, “There is no way you can interpret the statements made by any of the speakers as an invitation to join a conspiracy to go to the Capitol and commit crimes. . “

Mehta immediately asked, “Why not?”

The judge then cited Trump’s own speech on Jan. 6 in detail.

Ad

“His last words were ‘go to the Capitol’ and before that was ‘show strength’ and ‘fight.’ Why isn’t that a convincing invitation to do exactly what the mob did? ” Mehta asked. “Those words are hard to put back.”

At one point Mehta engaged in long hours of silence from Trump as his supporters fought with Capitol Police and DC cops and ramped up the building. He long asked Binnall whether the failure or refusal to condemn the attack while it was happening could be construed as approval.

Binnall replied, “You can’t have a situation where the president is obligated to take certain actions or say certain things or otherwise be subject to litigation.”

Brooks used the Westfall Act, a statue that protects federal employees from being prosecuted for actions taken while performing their official duties. However, Justice Department attorney Brian Boynton told the court Brooks should be denied such protection.

Ad

The fact that Brooks was “pushing for President Trump’s election in these sentences at a Trump rally makes it a campaign activity,” Boynton said.

Brooks, who represented himself at the proceedings Monday, told the court that a House ethics committee refused to pursue charges against him. He added that no ongoing campaign will participate on January 6.

“The campaign for the election ended on Nov. 3,” Brooks said. “Everything after that was a legal proceeding.”

Copyright 2022 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or distributed without permission.

[ad_2]