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

a reply to: MrGashler

Sloganeering.

The democrats are historically great at this.

Yet with social media, technology that has began to shift.

With an equal playing field, the pushback is significant.

Thus their worried demeanor of losing the narrative

a reply to: WeMustCare

Not quite. They appellate court said that Trump is free to make his official-act immunity argument to the lower courts as part of his case.

However, the fact that the appellate court has already ruled they don't see evidence to support that argument, Trump's lawyers would be better off looking for a different argument.

So this is also from the OP link and I think sums up the opinion that all 3 judges shared as the decision was unanimous:

“When a first-term President opts to seek a second term, his campaign to win re-election is not an official presidential act,” wrote Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. “The Office of the Presidency as an institution is agnostic about who will occupy it next. And campaigning to gain that office is not an official act of the office.”

This is also part of the decision from radical left CNN

"The president “does not spend every minute of every day exercising official responsibilities,” the opinion said. “And when he acts outside the functions of his office, he does not continue to enjoy immunity. … When he acts in an unofficial, private capacity, he is subject to civil suits like any private citizen.”

Judges Opinions

Sorry if not linked or quoted properly, but the written opinion is available everywhere.

a reply to: Mahogani

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.

This is a blatant disinformation and you should know that already.
Stop with the gaslighting bs.
All it does is lose whatever credibility you have.

Ashli Babbitt didn’t deserve what she got from that corrupt cya DC police system.

a reply to: GENERAL EYES

Sorry it may have been mostly peaceful but it still falls within the decision of what a riot entails. A collective action with violence and property damage.


No it does Not , but Maybe in your General Lying Eyes it does . My Condolences......

originally posted by: GENERAL EYES
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Sorry it may have been mostly peaceful but it still falls within the decision of what a riot entails. A collective action with violence and property damage.

Granted conservatives are surprisingly more controlled than liberal rioters because of their values and psychology but it was still a freaking riot.

My favorite part was when they started climbing the walls like lizards instead of using the staircase.

Classic.

Riot?
They worked in a coordinated and conscientious manner and picked up all their own trash.
That was more family reunion than it was a riot.

That narrative got trashed weeks ago.

a reply to: FarmerSimulation

I'm just going on how I was educated on the issue your experience may vary.

It's up to a Federal Official to decide whether it falls within that definition not me.

I'm just a layman.

a reply to: Mahogani

No. It does not. A president when elected, at all times, is president. If he goes fishing...he is still president. If he goes to the movies. He is still president. When he takes a #. He is still president.

He was giving a speech AS the ELECTED POTUS.

Do you not see how this opens the door for every whacko out there to jam the courts with even more frivolous lawsuits?

It will go nowhere but there is no precedent with the ruling that can always be looked at in the future.

a reply to: Mahogani

What, do you pdf's explode?

Right in there, first couple of pages, it explains it an unofficial private capacity. They are referring the Jones case. I get it...but this.....straight from you pdf

We answer no, at least at this stage of the proceedings. When a first-term President opts to seek a second term, his campaign to win re-election is not an official presidential act. The Office of the Presidency as an institution is agnostic about who will occupy it next. And campaigning to gain that office is not an official act of the office. So, when a sitting President running for a second term attends a private fundraiser for his re-election effort, hires (or fires) his campaign staff, cuts a political ad supporting his candidacy, or speaks at a campaign rally funded and organized by his re-election campaign committee, he is not carrying out the official duties of the presidency. 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.

That is not a law. That is their thought. How it should be. Ok. I get it. I do not agree and it leaves way to much gray area but....

He was not campaigning on 1/6 though. The election was over. He was giving a speech to American citizens as President. So, how does this apply? Let me know if you need any help.

a reply to: matafuchs

Who paid for the rally on J6?

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Mahogani

.....

He was not campaigning on 1/6 though. The election was over. He was giving a speech to American citizens as President. So, how does this apply? Let me know if you need any help.

The way it applies is explained in the very next paragraphs of the court's opinion:

"President Trump himself recognized that he engaged in his campaign to win re-election—including his post-election efforts to alter the declared results in his favor—in his personal capacity as presidential candidate, not in his official capacity as sitting President. That is evident in his effort to intervene in the Supreme Court’s consideration of a post-election lawsuit challenging the administration of the election in various battleground states. He expressly filed his motion in the Supreme Court “in his personal capacity as candidate for re- election to the office of President” rather than in his official capacity as sitting President. .... And he grounded his claimed right to intervene in the case in his “unique and substantial personal interests as a candidate for re-election to the Office of President” rather than in any official interest in exercising the office’s duties...... In arguing that he is entitled to official-act immunity in the cases before us, President Trump does not dispute that he engaged in his alleged actions up to and on January 6 in his capacity as a candidate. But he thinks that does not matter."

The full opinion can be found here:

www.cadc.uscourts.gov...$file/22-5069-2029472.pdf

What part of "Trump does not dispute" don't you understand?

a reply to: Threadbarer

Doesn't matter. The judges state he was campaigning.

a reply to: Mahogani

a reply to: matafuchs

It actually does matter as it gets to the heart of the court's decision. This was an event put together by Trump's campaign.

How can he argue he was acting in his capacity as President when it was literally a campaign event?

originally posted by: Vermilion
a reply to: Mahogani

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.

This is a blatant disinformation and you should know that already.
Stop with the gaslighting bs.
All it does is lose whatever credibility you have.

Ashli Babbitt didn’t deserve what she got from that corrupt cya DC police system.

It makes no difference if you agree with the facts or not. I put three links to support that section and what I said.

And you offered what? An opinion?

Thank you for your opinion. And thanks for reading.

a reply to: Boomer1947

404 on the link.

If they are referring to the lawsuits that were filed by the states for election,

see here Link

and this is proof? He was a candidate at that time and they were disputing the election. If you read a bit more you find this..from you link I found it online.

Plaintiff in Intervention, Donald J. Trump, the current President of the United States and a candidate for re-election as President at the general election that was held on November 3, 2020, is domiciled in the State of Florida.

This states he was the candidate until November 3rd. So he could not be a candidate after on 1/6 because the election was over and he was STILL president.

One court filing that, in all honesty, was not even his. He was attached to a case by the state of Texas.

a reply to: Threadbarer

Because he was still president.

originally posted by: Mahogani

originally posted by: Vermilion
a reply to: Mahogani

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.

This is a blatant disinformation and you should know that already.
Stop with the gaslighting bs.
All it does is lose whatever credibility you have.

Ashli Babbitt didn’t deserve what she got from that corrupt cya DC police system.

It makes no difference if you agree with the facts or not. I put three links to support that section and what I said.

And you offered what? An opinion?

Thank you for your opinion. And thanks for reading.

Ashli Babbitt- Killed by incompetent diversity hire policeman Jan 6

Brian Sicknick- 2 strokes Jan 7

Rosanne Boyland- Meth overdose Jan 6

Kevin Greeson- Coronary Artery Disease Jan 6

Benjamin Philips- Hypertensive Heart Disease Jan 6

Howard Charles Liebengood- Suicide Jan 9, line of duty death

Jeffrey Smith- Suicide Jan 15, line of duty death

Kyle Hendrik DeFreytag- Suicide July 10

Gunther Paul Hashida- Suicide July 29

These are the facts, stop twisting them to fit whatever narrative you’re after.

a reply to: JinMI

So if the President is always acting in the capacity of the Presidency, that must mean every single document produced during the Presidency is a a Presidential Record.

So why did Trump try to argue that many of the documents found at MAL were personal documents despite being produced during his presidency?

a reply to: Threadbarer

I think youre missing the purpose and scope of being a president.

Say trump was being political solely. Who can tell him he wasnt? No one. Congress does not reside above the potus, not does the judiciary.


Trump says those docs are his, then thats pretty much it. Trump says that speech is part of his office, pretty much is.

He uniquely gets to have it both ways