Lawsuits against Trump over the Jan. 6 riot can move forward, an appeals court rules

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit court knocked down Trump’s sweeping claims that presidential immunity shields him from liability in the lawsuits brought by Democratic lawmakers and police officers. But the three-judge panel said the 2024 Republican presidential primary frontrunner can continue to fight, as the cases proceed, to try to prove that his actions were taken in his official capacity as president.

Trump has said he can’t be sued over the riot that left dozens of police officers injured, arguing that his words during a rally before the storming of the Capitol addressed “matters of public concern” and fall within the scope of absolute presidential immunity.

The lawsuits from the police officers and the legislators who were caught in the attack on the Capitol can continue their lawsuits attempting to hold Donald Trump accountable. Numerous people died on January 6th and many others were injured. Five civilians died on that day, four police officers died after the fights and their deaths were ruled to have been in the line of duty.

Friday’s ruling underscores the challenges facing Trump as he tries to persuade courts, and potentially juries, that the actions he took in the run-up to the riot were part of his official duties as president. The judge presiding over his Capitol riot criminal trial is expected to also reject that claim.
...

“He is acting as office-seeker, not office-holder— no less than are the persons running against him when they take precisely the same actions in their competing campaigns to attain precisely the same office,” Judge Sri Srinivasan wrote for the court.

In other words, he was at a rally, campaigning, not acting in any way in the capacity of, or fulfilling his presidential duties. And therefore, there are no immunities for political campaigning.

The lawsuits from the police officers, and the separate lawsuits from the US legislators, will now continue, after a long delay.

“More than two years later, it is unnerving to hear the same fabrications and dangerous rhetoric that put my life as well as the lives of my fellow officers in danger on January 6, 2021,” he said (officer James Blassingame) in a statement. He added: “I hope our case will assist with helping put our democracy back on the right track; making it crystal clear that no person, regardless of title or position of stature, is above the rule of law.”

www.federaltimes.com...

a reply to: Mahogani

In other words, he was at a rally, campaigning,

Exactly...protected speech.

not acting in any way in the capacity of, or fulfilling his presidential duties.

He was president. So,yes, he was. If it happened to benefit him politically, that's fine.




Urmahgaaawd!

a reply to: Mahogani

thousands have died since that day. Thousands. And what of their plight?

Trump used his mind control to kill them. All of them. He's #ing AMAZING!!!

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” - Joseph Goebbels

a reply to: Klassified

apropos.

a reply to: JinMI

Incitement isn't protected speech. Whether or not his speech can be categorized as incitement will be determined in these lawsuits.

a reply to: Threadbarer

Yet, should he be found guilty, it won't apply to any of the dozens of other gov't critters doing the exact same thing.......

a reply to: Threadbarer

We can only hope that Trump's attorneys will fight like hell to get him cleared of the charges.

Another Act-Scene in the script

originally posted by: underpass61
a reply to: Threadbarer

We can only hope that Trump's attorneys will fight like hell to get him cleared of the charges.

It's not going to be hard to do. The prosecution is ignoring all the proper things President Trump said, and focusing only on "fight like hell" in an out-of-context manner.

As more J6 videos are released, the clearer it will be that Christopher Wray (FBI) worked with Nancy Pelosi to initiate the violence on that day.

a reply to: Mahogani

So now they didnt get killed at the riot but later committed suicide because of the riot? HAHAHA!

I am not surprised that the families aren't going along with this ruse as it will get them more money if their family member "died in the line of duty".

Anything for a buck huh?

a reply to: WeMustCare

No one can make you commit a crime. Remember? "Law and order!" "Just comply" right? If the cops pepper ball you, leave. Instead, you fight the cops? If they push you off the barriers protecting the Capitol. Leave. Don't be like one dumb suburban couple in their 50s posting photos of yourself and posting that "We're pushing back against these cops!" "I just wrestled and hit one!" The wife, "I just spit right that cops face!" "They can't stop all of us!" Clowns.

originally posted by: WeMustCare

originally posted by: underpass61
a reply to: Threadbarer

We can only hope that Trump's attorneys will fight like hell to get him cleared of the charges.

It's not going to be hard to do. The prosecution is ignoring all the proper things President Trump said, and focusing only on "fight like hell" in an out-of-context manner.

As more J6 videos are released, the clearer it will be that Christopher Wray (FBI) worked with Nancy Pelosi to initiate the violence on that day.

There is no prosecution. This is a civil case.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: JinMI

Incitement isn't protected speech. Whether or not his speech can be categorized as incitement will be determined in these lawsuits.

How could it not be?

Every time he opens his mouth he's addressing his "cult" to take action.

a reply to: Annee

Says the "cult" who snaps to attention and reeeesponds when he opens his mouth?

a reply to: JinMI

You're conflating the issues. You're talking about his freedom to speak, which is not in question.

He raised the defense of presidential immunity for calling for an insurrection, as alleged. The court ruled there is no immunity.

No one said anything about freedom of speech, only that there is no immunity for him WHEN he speaks. Different things.

a reply to: Mahogani

Nor has there been a charge for insurrection....

Now who's conflating things our resident propagandist?

a reply to: Mahogani

The more opposition he overcomes, the bigger our hero will be at the movie's conclusion!

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Mahogani

Nor has there been a charge for insurrection....

Now who's conflating things our resident propagandist?

Stay on topic, really. Enough of personal attacks in every single post you make.

You have a problem with me? Resolve it through links and facts, not personal insults. If you can, of course. But I know you can't because you insult people when you can't refute what they say.

Anyways, have a nice day. One post is enough time wasted on you for today. We'll try again tomorrow, ok?