Donald Trump is no stranger to a lawsuit.
Even before his rise in political superstardom the man was endlessly targeted by anyone desperate to takedown New York City’s most successful real estate developer.
As President, nothing changed and Trump still finds himself the victim of undue legal persecution by radical Democrats hellbent on seeing him behind bars for crimes he never committed.
On Monday, Trump’s lawyer appeared in court and argued that the Former President cannot be sued over the brilliant speech he gave on Jan. 6 because he was acting within his presidential duties to address the people he leads.
Trump’s lawyer, Jesse Binnall, said during a court hearing that Trump was “immune,” or shielded, from three lawsuits by Democratic members of Congress and two police officers.
“Executive immunity must be broad,” Binnall said.
The lawsuits, filed by plaintiffs including radical Democrats Reps. Eric Swalwell and Jerry Nadler, argue that Trump is liable for injuries to police and lawmakers.
However, what these hysterical fail to remember is the Supreme Court case from 1982, which holds that presidents are immune from lawsuits over their official acts.
During a five-hour court hearing, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta in the District of Columbia pressed lawyers for both sides about the limits of this presidential immunity.
Plaintiffs lawyer Joseph Sellers countered that Trump’s speech was a campaign event, not an official act and said it was “inconceivable” that the Supreme Court intended to shield presidents from lawsuits over this sort of conduct.
“There is no legitimate role for fomenting an insurrection aimed at Congress,” Sellers said.
Typical argument, but where was the insurrection again? Anyone witnessing the events on Jan. 6 can clearly see no such insurrection occurred.
The lawsuits charge that the Capitol attack was a direct consequence of Trump’s actions, including the speech to thousands of supporters who were rightfully up-in-arms at the Democrats who had just stolen an entire presidential election.
Mehta did not issue a ruling on Monday, saying during the hearing that the litigation raises difficult legal questions.
At one point, Mehta questioned whether Trump’s remarks in the aftermath of the Capitol siege were intended to encourage rioters.
“What do I do about the fact the president didn’t denounce the conduct immediately?” Mehta said to Binnall.
Lest we forget, Trump demanded his followers protest peacefully.
Trump was impeached by the House of Representatives and acquitted by the Senate on a charge of inciting the riot, which is also under investigation by a House select committee.
Swalwell’s lawsuit includes similar claims against Trump allies who also spoke at the Jan. 6 rally, including campaign lawyer Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s eldest son Donald Trump Jr., and Republican congressman Mo Brooks.
Brooks, representing himself during the hearing, asked Mehta to dismiss Swalwell’s claims against him.
Brooks argued his remarks at the Jan. 6 rally were within the scope of his duties as a House member. A law called the Westfall Act protects federal employees from being sued for actions taken as part of their jobs.
Trump and his co-defendants have argued that their remarks preceding the Jan. 6 attack were political speech protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Author: Elizabeth Tierney