Trump's plea to reject charges alleging incitement was rejected by judge
Key Takeaways:
- A federal judge rejected former President Donald Trump's attempt to have conspiracy charges against senators and two Capitol police officers dismissed.
- In a civil investigation of Donald Trump's business activities in New York state, a New York judge ruled that he and two of his children must appear under oath.
- The complaints reference a federal civil rights provision enacted in response to the Ku Klux Klan's harassment of federal employees.
Former President Donald Trump's efforts to dismiss conspiracy charges filed by legislators and two Capitol police officers were denied by a federal court, who said in his judgment that the former president's statements "plausibly" led to the disturbance on Jan. 6, 2021.
In his Friday order, U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta stated that Trump's statements during a rally before the violent assault of the U.S. Capitol were likely "words of incitement not protected by the First Amendment."
"Only in the most extreme circumstances could a court refuse to accept that the First Amendment protects the speech of the President," Mehta wrote. "However, the court feels this is the case."
The order is the latest in a string of legal woes for the former president. Just hours before, the National Archives announced that materials discovered at Trump's Mar-a-Lago club included sensitive information and that it had contacted the Justice Department.
On Thursday, a New York court decided Donald Trump and two of his children must testify under oath in a civil probe into his business operations in New York state. Another court ordered that his company's finance chief be questioned as part of another investigation by the District of Columbia attorney general's office.
Earlier this week, the firm that generated Trump's yearly financial statements stated that the records, which were used to acquire lucrative loans and enhance Trump's image as a rich businessman, "should no longer be relied upon."
Trump urged supporters at a scheduled gathering on the Ellipse just hours before Congress was set to certify the results of the 2020 presidential election, "Fight like hell, and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a nation anymore." "(We're) going to attempt to give (weak Republicans) the sort of pride and courage that they need to take back our nation," he continued before instructing the audience to "go down Pennsylvania Avenue."
Trump's comments, according to Mehta, might have incited others to disobey the law. The court rejected similar allegations against Trump's son Donald Trump Jr. and lawyer Rudy Giuliani, who said the First Amendment protected their speech. Another move to dismiss filed by Alabama Republican Rep. Mo Brooks, who is also listed in the lawsuits, has yet to be decided by Mehta.
The lawsuits, filed by Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., officers James Blassingame as well as Sidney Hemby, and initially Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., and later joined by other House Democrats, claimed that Trump, Trump Jr., Giuliani, and Brooks made "false and incendiary accusations of fraud and theft," and also that "a violent mob attacked the U.S. Capitol in direct response to the Defendant's express
When Thompson was selected to chair the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurgency, he withdrew out of the suit.
According to lawyer Joseph Sellers, the verdict was "a tremendous win for the rule of law, and underscores just how vital the courts are for maintaining responsibility," according to lawyer Joseph Sellers. He is representing the group of House Democrats with the NAACP.
The lawsuits point to a federal civil rights legislation created in response to the Ku Klux Klan's intimidation of government employees. They reveal how the Trumps, Giuliani, and Brooks circulated false charges of election fraud before and after the 2020 presidential election was called.
They accuse them of helping to incite tens of thousands of rioters to attack the Capitol. On Jan. 6, five individuals were killed in the violence, including a U.S. Capitol Police officer.
All of them have refuted the accusations.
According to Mehta, Trump's efforts to dismiss the lawsuit overlooked the premise that his remarks spurred the events that followed, but that argument was credible.
"The First Amendment does not insulate the President from accountability in this one-of-a-kind situation," Mehta said.