Fogbow

In a legal brief resembling one of his freewheeling campaign speeches and impeachment defense montages, Donald Trump went on the attack against lawmakers like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), and Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) to depict the former president’s speech in the lead-up to the Jan. 6 siege of the U.S. Capitol as routine political rhetoric.

Trump’s missive comes courtesy of his lawyer Jesse Binnall, who offered dozens of conspiracy theories to explain away the former president’s defeat in Nevada. In December, former Michael Flynn lawyer Binnall blamed voter fraud, dead voters, electronic voting machines, automated vote-counting machines, shenanigans by election officials and more for Trump’s loss, and a judge shot down some 25 of his varying hypotheses.

In the brief, the former president casts his efforts to subvert the 2020 election and block its legally mandated certification as merely “exercising a specific constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

“President Trump had an ever-present duty to ensure the election laws were followed, including the certification process,” Binnall wrote.

The argument turns on its head an argument deployed against Trump, accusing him of violating that duty.

(CNN)A federal judge in Washington, DC, is set to consider, for the first time, whether former President Donald Trump is immune from liability related to his supporters attacking the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.

The major hearing on Monday is part of a trio of insurrection-related lawsuits seeking to hold Trump and others accountable at a time when the House select committee probing January 6 has aggressively investigated the political leaders who inspired the attack, and as the Justice Department is prosecuting more than 700 rioters for criminal offenses.

The court hearing, set to begin at 1 p.m. ET before Judge Amit Mehta of the DC District Court, will address key questions including whether Trump and Republican figures like Rep. Mo Brooks of Alabama can shield themselves from legal fallout because of the First Amendment or their stature as elected officials.

It is the first major test of whether civil litigation is a viable route to holding Trump accountable for the violence toward Congress, after he was acquitted by the Senate in his second impeachment trial last February.

A federal judge DENIES much of Donald Trump's motion to dismiss civil suits seeking to hold him liable for Jan. 6.

Rudy Giuliani and Don Jr. secured dismissal.

Brooks denied immunity—but invited to file motion to dismissal that judge "will grant."

Rep Mo Brooks (R-AL) files new motion (serving as his own defense attorney) .... seeking dismissal of civil suit filed by Rep Eric Swalwell (D-CA) Swalwell suit argues Rep Brooks & Trump rally participants contributed to Jan 6

Rolodex wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 3:20 pm Can we change the name of this thread to Blassingame et al (civil suit against trump from congressfolk/cops) ...or something like that (so we know who the et al are).

I'd totally forgotten about this case.

Reality Check wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 4:17 pm

Rolodex wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 3:20 pm Can we change the name of this thread to Blassingame et al (civil suit against trump from congressfolk/cops) ...or something like that (so we know who the et al are).

I'd totally forgotten about this case.

It is up to the original author or of course Foggy to do that. I second the request.

MN-Skeptic wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 5:24 pm

Reality Check wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 4:17 pm

Rolodex wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 3:20 pm Can we change the name of this thread to Blassingame et al (civil suit against trump from congressfolk/cops) ...or something like that (so we know who the et al are).

I'd totally forgotten about this case.

It is up to the original author or of course Foggy to do that. I second the request.

Blassingame et al v. Trump - District Court, D.C. - Jan 6 civil suits by cops, etc. against Trump

How's that?

MN-Skeptic wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2024 6:49 pm I was shocked to see that I started this thread 2½ years ago. And then no posts were added for almost 2 years. Time for Trump to be held accountable!

NOTICE of Hearing: Status Conference set for 2/23/2024 at 1:30 PM in Courtroom 10 before Judge Amit P. Mehta. Members of the public or media may access this hearing by dialing the court's toll-free public access line: (877) 848-7030, access code 321-8747. (smc)

Jan. 6 lawsuits against Trump may advance despite criminal case, judge rules
Instead, the judge ordered Trump to begin describing the basis for his claim that he is immune from the lawsuits.

Lawsuits by members of Congress and police officers against Donald Trump for his actions on Jan. 6 may advance despite the related criminal case against him in Washington, a federal judge ruled Thursday.

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta rejected Trump’s effort to pause the lawsuits until the criminal charges over his attempt to subvert the 2020 election — brought by special counsel Jack Smith — are resolved.

Instead, Mehta ordered Trump to begin describing the basis for his claim that he is immune from the lawsuits because his actions on Jan. 6 were part of his official duties as president. Trump had urged Mehta to sideline the lawsuits in part because he argued that disclosing details about his claim of presidential immunity could undermine his criminal defense.

But Mehta rejected that argument.

“Both cases center on the former President’s actions in the lead up to and on January 6, 2021,” Metha agreed. “But Defendant overstates the significance of that factual overlap in the present posture of these matters.”