Donald Trump could be sued for riot harm on January 6, the US Justice Department said in a court filing

[ad_1]

Former US president Donald Trump may be sued by injured Capitol Police officers and Democratic politicians in the January 6, 2021 riot at the US Capitol building, the Justice Department said Thursday in a federal lawsuit court testing Mr Trump’s legal immunity for his speech before the riot.

Key points: Donald Trump is being sued by Capitol Police officers and Democratic politicians over his role in the riots on January 6, 2021 The lawsuits describe how Mr Trump spread claims of election fraud, which he is said to have inspired rioters to attack the Capitol The US Justice Department says a president should not be immune from prosecution if their words are an “incitement of imminent private violence”

The department told a federal appeals court in Washington in a legal filing that it should allow the lawsuits to move forward, rejecting Mr Trump’s argument that he is immune from the claims.

The department said it has no position on the lawsuits’ allegations that the former president’s words prompted the attack on the Capitol.

However, the department’s lawyers told the court that a president cannot be protected by “absolute immunity” if his words are found to be an “incitement of imminent private violence”.

“As head of state and head of state, the president has ‘an extraordinary power to speak to his fellow citizens and on their behalf’,” the filing said.

“But that traditional role is one of public communication and persuasion, not inciting imminent private violence.”

The brief was filed by attorneys for the Justice Department’s Civil Division and is unrelated to a separate criminal investigation by a department special counsel into whether Mr. Trump could be criminally charged for efforts to overturn President Joe Biden’s victory. Biden in the 2020 presidential election before the Capitol chaos.

In fact, the lawyers note that they are not taking a position regarding potential criminal liability for Mr Trump or anyone else.

The court case is far from proving the former president guilty, experts say. (AP Photo: Jon Elswick)

Mr Trump’s lawyers argued he was acting within the bounds of his official duties and had no intention of inciting violence when he called on thousands of supporters to “march on the Capitol” and “fight like hell”. before riots broke out.

“The rioters’ actions do not waive President Trump’s immunity,” his lawyers wrote in court papers.

“Entering January 6th and on the day itself, President Trump acted well within the scope of ordinary presidential conduct when he engaged in open discussion and debate about the integrity of the 2020 election.”

A spokesman for Mr Trump said on Thursday that the former president had “repeatedly called for peace, patriotism, and respect for our men and women of law enforcement” on January 6, and that the courts would ” should rule in President Trump’s favor in short order and dismiss these frivolous cases.”

Rioters supporting Donald Trump enter the Capitol on January 6, 2021 (Reuters: Leah Millis)

The case is among several legal problems facing Mr Trump as he mounts another bid for the White House in 2024.

A prosecutor in Georgia is investigating whether Mr Trump and his allies broke the law as they tried to reverse his election loss in that state.

Mr Trump is also under federal criminal investigation over top secret documents found at his Florida estate.

In a separate investigation into efforts by Mr Trump and his allies to keep the Republican president in power, special counsel Jack Smith subpoenaed former vice-president Mike Pence, who said he would fight the subpoena.

The lawsuits allege that Trump incited violence to lead to chaos, bypassing protections

Mr Trump is appealing a ruling by a federal judge in Washington, who last year rejected the former president’s efforts to throw out conspiracy civil lawsuits filed by lawmakers and police officers.

USDistrict Judge Amit Mehta ruled that Trump’s words at a rally before the violent attack on the USCapitol were likely “words of incitement not protected by the First Amendment”.

“Only in the rarest of circumstances would a court find that the First Amendment protects a president’s speech,” Judge Mehta wrote in his February 2022 decision. “But the court believes this is the case.”

One of the lawsuits, filed by Democratic congressman Eric Swalwell, states that Trump “directly incited the violence in the Capitol that followed and then watched with approval as the building filled.”

Two other lawsuits were filed, one by other House Democrats and another by officials James Blassingame and Sidney Hemby.

The House Democrats’ lawsuit cites a federal civil rights law enacted to counter the Ku Klux Klan’s intimidation of officers.

The charges detail how Mr Trump and others spread baseless claims of election fraud, both before and after the 2020 presidential election was declared, and charge that they helped incite thousands of rioters before them. attack the Capitol.

The lawsuits seek damages for physical and emotional injuries the plaintiffs suffered during the insurgency.

Even if the appeals court agreed that Mr Trump could be sued, the plaintiffs still faced an uphill battle.

They will have to show Mr Trump’s speech was more than fiery rhetoric, but a direct and deliberate call for imminent violence, according to Laurie Levenson, a Loyola Law School professor and former federal prosecutor.

“We are really far from knowing that, even if the court allows the lawsuit to continue, whether they will succeed,” she said.

“Even if the court said that hypothetically you could file an action against a president, I think they’re probably going to draw a line that’s very lenient with the president’s protected conduct.”

US Attorney-General Merrick Garland testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday. (AP Photo: J Scott Applewhite)

In its filing, the Justice Department cautioned that “courts must be careful not to adopt rules that would unduly chill the president’s legitimate communications” or burden a president with burdensome and intrusive lawsuits.

“In the exercise of their traditional communications roles, presidents routinely address controversial issues that are the subject of passionate feelings,” the department wrote.

“Presidents can sometimes use strong rhetoric. And some who hear that rhetoric can overreact, or even respond with violence.”

AP

[ad_2]