Trump loses in court again
Congressman Swalwell's suit accusing Trump of fomenting insurrection on January 6, 2021, allowed to proceed, although not on Donald Jr. and Rudy Giuliani and not on all the original charges in the suit.
[quote]WASHINGTON — East Bay Rep. Eric Swalwell can pursue his lawsuit to hold former President Donald Trump accountable for the violent insurrection at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, a judge held in a scathing ruling delivered Friday.
The potentially landmark decision, which the Trump team will all but certainly attempt to appeal to higher courts, would pave the way for an unprecedented civil trial of a former president for actions he took while in office. That could mean court-ordered inspection of Trump’s communications and actions leading up to, during and after the riot, and potentially a deposition of Trump under oath.
While some of Swalwell’s claims were rejected and the judge released other individuals from the lawsuit, including Trump’s son, Donald Trump Jr., and lawyer, Rudolph Giuliani, D.C. District Judge Amit Mehta issued a 112-page ruling declaring that Trump was not covered by presidential immunity or free speech protections enough to dismiss the lawsuit.
Swalwell said in a statement late Friday, “Judge Mehta’s ruling is a complete vindication of my claims against Donald Trump for inciting an attack against the Capitol. Trump led a conspiracy to violently interfere with the January 6 Joint Session of Congress. With this ruling, I will move forward to depose Donald Trump and seek all relevant evidence surrounding January 6.”
Mehta acknowledged the significance of his decision.
“To deny a President immunity from civil damages is no small step,” Mehta wrote. “The court well understands the gravity of its decision. But the alleged facts of this case are without precedent, and the court believes that its decision is consistent with the purposes behind such immunity.”
Calling it a “one-of-a-kind case,” Mehta dissected Trump’s speech on Jan. 6 and detailed how the president’s actions and words could be seen as inciting the crowd gathered near the Capitol to commit violence and as a conspiracy to disrupt lawmakers’ certification of the 2020 election results by force and intimidation.
“Only in the most extraordinary circumstances could a court not recognize that the First Amendment protects a President’s speech,” Mehta wrote. “But the court believes this is that case. Even Presidents cannot avoid liability for speech that falls outside the expansive reach of the First Amendment. The court finds that in this one-of-a-kind case the First Amendment does not shield the President from liability.”[/quote]
[quote]WASHINGTON — East Bay Rep. Eric Swalwell can pursue his lawsuit to hold former President Donald Trump accountable for the violent insurrection at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, a judge held in a scathing ruling delivered Friday.
The potentially landmark decision, which the Trump team will all but certainly attempt to appeal to higher courts, would pave the way for an unprecedented civil trial of a former president for actions he took while in office. That could mean court-ordered inspection of Trump’s communications and actions leading up to, during and after the riot, and potentially a deposition of Trump under oath.
While some of Swalwell’s claims were rejected and the judge released other individuals from the lawsuit, including Trump’s son, Donald Trump Jr., and lawyer, Rudolph Giuliani, D.C. District Judge Amit Mehta issued a 112-page ruling declaring that Trump was not covered by presidential immunity or free speech protections enough to dismiss the lawsuit.
Swalwell said in a statement late Friday, “Judge Mehta’s ruling is a complete vindication of my claims against Donald Trump for inciting an attack against the Capitol. Trump led a conspiracy to violently interfere with the January 6 Joint Session of Congress. With this ruling, I will move forward to depose Donald Trump and seek all relevant evidence surrounding January 6.”
Mehta acknowledged the significance of his decision.
“To deny a President immunity from civil damages is no small step,” Mehta wrote. “The court well understands the gravity of its decision. But the alleged facts of this case are without precedent, and the court believes that its decision is consistent with the purposes behind such immunity.”
Calling it a “one-of-a-kind case,” Mehta dissected Trump’s speech on Jan. 6 and detailed how the president’s actions and words could be seen as inciting the crowd gathered near the Capitol to commit violence and as a conspiracy to disrupt lawmakers’ certification of the 2020 election results by force and intimidation.
“Only in the most extraordinary circumstances could a court not recognize that the First Amendment protects a President’s speech,” Mehta wrote. “But the court believes this is that case. Even Presidents cannot avoid liability for speech that falls outside the expansive reach of the First Amendment. The court finds that in this one-of-a-kind case the First Amendment does not shield the President from liability.”[/quote]
80-89, M
