The Ministry’s civil law division pointed to a Washington appeals court remarking that the former president does not have full immunity in regards to the January 6, 2021 takeover of Congress and that he can be denounced by police officers and legislators. who suffered physical or psychological harm. According to the defense, Trump did not cross the limits of his official power and cannot be held responsible for the reaction of his supporters.
This Thursday, March 2, the Department of Justice affirmed that former President Donald Trump can be sued for haranguing his voters to act on January 6, 2021, the day hundreds of rioters took over the Capitol.
The ministry urged a federal appeals court in Washington that it should let the lawsuits from police officers and lawmakers who suffered injuries that day proceed, declining the full immunity claimed by the magnate’s lawyers.
However, this is not an effective indicator of Trump’s guilt, the Department clarified. They reaffirmed that they are not taking a position on the potential responsibility of him or anyone else, but that they are advocating that the legal proceedings can be carried out.
In a document presented by lawyers from the Civil Division, they indicated that, if it is determined that the words that the former head of state gave during his address that day are an “incitement to imminent private violence”, it would annul the “absolute immunity” of the first amendment.
“As the nation’s leader, the president has extraordinary power to speak to his fellow citizens and on their behalf,” they asserted.
This goes against the contention of Trump’s lawyers, who maintain that he was acting at all times within the limits of his official duties, without any desire to provoke a violent uprising when he referred to “marching on the Capitol” and that ” the actions of the rioters” are not grounds for revoking immunity.
While a spokesman for the ex-president expressed himself this Thursday, remarking that the Republican leader “repeatedly called for peace, patriotism and respect for our men and women in charge of enforcing the law” and that the courts “should shortly dismiss these statements frivolous”.
Was there a direct call for insurrection?
In February 2022, a federal judge in Washington ignored Trump’s appeals in civil lawsuits by lawmakers and police officers. The magistrate, Amit Mehta, blurted out that the statements made at the rally before the riot were “incitement words not protected by the First Amendment”, something that could only happen in “the most extraordinary circumstances”.
The lawsuits launched by House Democrats and some officials seek damages for physical and psychological injuries suffered during the insurrection.
However, the road is not so easy for the accusers. If the appeals court were to give their claims the green light, they would have to show that there was a direct call for violence.
This is just one more of the legal situations involving Trump. He is also under federal investigation for the classified documents that were in his Mar-a-Lago mansion; while in Georgia they are finding out if he and his allies broke the law trying to overturn the state election defeat.