Eric Swalwell sues Trump and close allies over Capitol riot in second major insurrection lawsuit

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Tony Stark, Mar 5, 2021.

  1. Tony Stark

    Tony Stark

    https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/05/politics/trump-lawsuit-insurrection-eric-swalwell/index.html

    upload_2021-3-5_7-21-14.png



    Washington (CNN)Former House impeachment manager Eric Swalwell has sued former President Donald Trump, his son Donald Trump Jr., Rudy Giuliani and Republican Rep. Mo Brooks in a second major lawsuit seeking to hold Trump and his allies accountable for inciting the insurrection at the US Capitol on January 6.

    The new lawsuit filed on Friday by Swalwell, a California Democrat who helped to lead impeachment arguments against Trump for inciting insurrection, follows a similar suit filed last month by Rep. Bennie Thompson against Trump, Giuliani and the extremist groups the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys. Swalwell's case makes some of the same claims as Thompson's -- citing a civil rights law meant to counter the Ku Klux Klan's intimidation of elected officials.

    But it also alleges Trump, Trump Jr., Giuliani and Brooks broke Washington, DC, laws, including an anti-terrorism act, by inciting the riot, and that they aided and abetted violent rioters and inflicted emotional distress on the members of Congress.


    "The Defendants, in short, convinced the mob that something was occurring that -- if actually true -- might indeed justify violence, and then sent that mob to the Capitol with violence-laced calls for immediate action," the lawsuit, in Washington, DC's federal District Court, alleges.

    The lawsuits will unfurl as Trump faces mounting pressures in investigations by House committees that seek his financial records, as well as in criminal probes related to his private business and his post-election actions. He has not been charged with any crime.

    Friday's suit could bump up against free speech protections for speakers at the rally, as well as immunity Trump could try to claim he had while serving as president. All of the elected officials in the lawsuit, including Trump, are named in their personal capacities in court, meaning they would use private lawyers and not be shielded by their public offices.

    But should either this suit or Thompson's proceed, it would mean the former President and his allies would be subject to discovery and depositions, potentially exposing details and evidence that weren't released during the Senate impeachment trial.

    New suit claims Trump, allies encouraged riot

    Swalwell, who was locked down in the House chamber during the siege, claims Trump, Trump Jr., Giuliani and Brooks prompted the attack on Congress with their repeated public assertions of voter fraud, their encouragement that supporters come to DC on January 6, and in their speeches that day. Each man had told the crowd that Joe Biden's electoral certification in Congress could be blocked, and that Trump's supporters should fight, the lawsuit alleges.

    "Trump directly incited the violence at the Capitol that followed and then watched approvingly as the building was overrun," the lawsuit said. "The horrific events of January 6 were a direct and foreseeable consequence of the Defendants' unlawful actions. As such, the Defendants are responsible for the injury and destruction that followed."

    In Trump's own speech just before the siege began, he told the crowd to "show strength" and "walk down Pennsylvania Avenue."
    Brooks, in his speech, had declared "Today is the day American patriots start taking down names and kicking ass," then asked the rally attendees if they were willing to fight.

    Giuliani during the January 6 rally said, "Let's have trial by combat," and the crowd responded with cheers.

    Trump Jr. said that the crowd was a message to Republicans who weren't fighting to overturn the election result.

    "You can be a hero, or you can be a zero," he said at the rally. "If you're gonna be the zero, and not the hero, we're coming for you, and we're gonna have a good time doing it."

    The lawsuit attempts to connect the speeches directly to the crowd's response.
    "In what should have been a sign of how the crowd was receiving the Defendants' claims and allegations, spontaneous chants of 'Fight for Trump! Fight for Trump!' rose up as Trump Jr. lambasted the alleged 'glaring inconsistencies' and 'statistical impossibilities' that allegedly had made President Biden's win possible," the lawsuit said.


    Following the speeches at the pro-Trump rally, many in the crowd marched to the US Capitol, with several violently breaking into the building and looking for lawmakers who were certifying Biden's victory over Trump in the 2020 election. Five people, including a US Capitol Police officer, died.

    Last month, Jason Miller, a spokesman for Trump, distanced him from responsibility for the insurrection, in a response to Thompson's lawsuit.

    "President Trump has been acquitted in the Democrats' latest Impeachment Witch Hunt, and the facts are irrefutable," Miller said in a statement. "President Trump did not plan, produce or organize the Jan. 6th rally on the Ellipse. President Trump did not incite or conspire to incite any violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6th."
    Brooks and Giuliani have taken similar positions.

    Brooks has denied responsibility for the riot, telling a radio show host the day after the attack that he "absolutely" had no regrets. He later said in a statement, "No one at the rally interpreted my remarks to be anything other than what they were: A pep talk after the derriere-kicking conservatives suffered in the dismal 2020 elections."
    Giuliani, following the riot and speaking on his podcast, said "that the President had nothing to do with" it and has tried to claim, falsely, that left-wing groups were part of the siege.

    Law enforcement, including FBI Director Chris Wray, have resoundingly rejected that claim, and court records have made clear many of the rioters were Trump supporters, with some taking part in right-wing paramilitary and extremist groups.

    Court busy with insurrection-related cases
    The new lawsuit and Thompson's claims are likely to go hand-in-hand in DC's federal trial court, potentially even before the same judge, Amit Mehta, who was appointed by Barack Obama. They may take months or even years to reach resolutions and proceed as the same federal court hears criminal cases against around 300 alleged rioters and other Trump supporters who came to Washington on January 6.

    Swalwell, in his lawsuit, is seeking an order from the court that forces Trump and his three allies to give at least seven days notice before holding any gathering of more than 50 people in DC or state capitols on important days related to elections, so the House member might have the opportunity to go to court to try to block the gatherings.

    Like Thompson's lawsuit, the second insurrection lawsuit is also seeking damages but hasn't named an amount.

    After the riot, Swalwell served as a House manager in Trump's impeachment. The Senate voted for acquittal, with 57 of 100 senators finding Trump guilty, a split that failed to reach the required two-thirds majority for a conviction.

    After that vote, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell appeared to point to criminal prosecutors and private parties who could take Trump to court over the riot. McConnell said Trump was "still liable for everything he did while he was in office" and noted "we have civil litigation" from which a president would not be immune.

    Using the KKK act in court
    Both the Thompson and Swalwell lawsuits could face a challenge in court on their claims under the Ku Klux Klan Act.

    The KKK statute has not been widely used, according to University of Texas Law professor and CNN Supreme Court analyst Stephen Vladeck.

    "It was specifically meant to provide federal civil remedies for federal officers who were prevented from performing their duties by two or more individuals, whether federal marshals in the post-Civil War South, federal judges in un-reconstructed lower courts; or federal legislators," Vladeck said last month.

    "It's not at all hard to see how that provision maps onto what happened on January 6," he added. "The harder question is whether Trump himself can be connected to that conspiracy."

    In Thompson's suit, the Mississippi Democrat points to Trump's words and tweets in the months leading up to the insurrection to accuse Trump and Giuliani of mobilizing and preparing their supporters for an attack to prevent Congress from certifying the 2020 election results on January 6. The suit, whose legal contours are being handled by the NAACP, was the first civil action filed against the former President related to the January 6 attack.

    It landed in court in the days after Trump was acquitted by the Senate for inciting the siege.

    In the Thompson lawsuit, Trump received formal notice recently that he was being sued.

    According to a notice to the federal court filed this week, Trump received his summons by certified mail in February. It was mailed to him at Mar-a-Lago and received there by a person named "Ricky."

    The service of a lawsuit is a standard procedural step in any lawsuit, and nothing about Trump's receipt of the summons to respond to the suit is unusual. However, the step kicks off proceedings so they can move forward in court.
     
    Frederick Foresight likes this.
  2. Tony Stark

    Tony Stark

    Considering a bipartisan majority of both Houses of Congress agreed Trump incited in insurrection I think they have a case.
     
    Frederick Foresight likes this.

  3. yeah but that was in a Congress..... this case will never get to discovery or a trial...it will be dismissed on numerous grounds. First what standing does Swallwell have to sue all those people? seoncd how do you sue an organization just because its members were physically there and some individuals did stuff they were arrested for (argument is the individuals were arrested for their actions but the group's existence is not illegal nor liable in civil court), the standard of proof is still pretty high to link Trump's specific actions on that day to the riot, GOP bullshit speeches afterwards are not evidence but political opinion.

    Based on a lot of these things a civil case will be th rown out before it gets anywhere or will be delayed for years.
     
  4. Tony Stark

    Tony Stark


    upload_2021-3-5_8-47-38.png


    Feb. 17, 2021, 6:35 PM CST

    By Richard Primus, Theodore J. St. Antoine Collegiate Professor at the University of Michigan Law School

    Now that former President Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial is over, attention is shifting to other possible ways of holding him — and others — accountable for the violent attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6. Congress might consider disqualifying Trump from holding future office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which provides that people who engage in insurrection against the United States are barred from federal office, and some are calling for criminal charges to be brought against him.

    But Trump and others who instigated or participated in the attack also face another kind of legal exposure: They might be held liable in lawsuits and required to pay monetary damages to people who were injured. These civil cases may offer the best chance of holding Trump accountable.

    Unlike impeachment, lawsuits are not dependent on getting two-thirds of the Senate to agree — something that in this case would have required at least 17 Republicans to vote against a president of their own party. Unlike criminal cases, they don’t depend on a prosecutor’s willingness to take the political risks and expend the considerable resources needed to bring charges against a former president.

    And unlike a criminal conviction, which would require getting a jury to agree unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump broke laws in connection with the riot, a civil judgment only requires convincing a jury (or sometimes just a judge) that Trump “more likely than not” engaged in unlawful behavior.

    One of the federal laws under which Trump now faces the prospect of civil liability is an often-neglected statute from 1871 — one that Congress passed precisely to address a problem of organized political violence.

    At that time, the Republican Party was the party of Abraham Lincoln and the North. Most white Southerners were Democrats, and the Democratic Party was largely committed to maintaining a society in which the white race was supreme, even though slavery had been officially abolished. So long as only whites could vote in the South, Southern governments would be controlled by Democrats, and the power of local government would be deployed to support white supremacy.

    But once African American men won the right to vote, the Democrats’ hold on power was threatened. African Americans overwhelmingly voted Republican. So in Southern states with large Black populations, the combined strength of the small number of white Republicans and a much larger number of newly enfranchised Black Republicans was enough to win elections — and to destabilize the racial order that most white Southerners wanted to maintain.

    In a fierce attempt to take back political control, many white Southerners turned to organized violence against African Americans who were potential voters. Black men who registered to vote might be threatened, roughed up or killed — as might the federal officials, white as well as Black, who were supposed to protect the rights of these new voters.


    The chief embodiment of this campaign of violence was, of course, an organization called the Ku Klux Klan. At the time, the Klan operated more or less as a paramilitary arm of the Democratic Party, using violence to intimidate Republican Party activists in the South (both Black and white) and to prevent African American men from voting.

    The federal government struck back with a law sometimes called the Civil Rights Act of 1871 but often just referred to as the Ku Klux Klan Act. Under the Klan Act, the use of violence to prevent people from voting became a federal crime.

    To support the work of federal officials enforcing the Klan Act, the statute also prohibited the use of “force, intimidation or threat” to impede the work of federal officers. And it also created an avenue for civil cases against anyone who conspired to injure federal officers or to prevent federal officers from carrying out their duties. Under the Klan Act, anyone injured by such a conspiracy could sue any of the conspirators for money damages.

    On Tuesday, Bennie Thompson, who represents Mississippi’s 2nd District in the U.S. House, filed suit against Trump, Rudy Guiliani, the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers under the Klan Act. Thompson’s complaint, submitted by the NAACP and the private law firm of Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll, argues that the defendants did exactly what the Klan Act proscribed: By instigating a riot that would prevent Congress from counting Electoral College votes, they conspired to use force, intimidation or threat to keep federal officers from discharging their duties.

    As a result of that conspiracy, Thompson alleges, his own physical safety was threatened, and he suffered emotional distress. Assuming that Thompson can demonstrate that he was harmed as he says, the Klan Act entitles him to recover monetary damages from anyone who conspired to instigate or conduct the riot. Indeed, video presented at the impeachment trial shows many members of Congress facing threats, while the disruption halting the counting of the Electoral Ballots was witnessed around the world.

    Thompson’s might be only the first of many Klan Act suits brought against the former president and whoever else was responsible for the violence at the Capitol, which not only led many members of Congress to fear for their lives but resulted in death and serious injuries to Capitol Police officers.

    One of the Klan Act’s often-neglected provisions says that anyone who was injured by a conspiracy to impede the work of federal officials can sue for damages — not just the federal officials who were the target of the conspiracy. Every congressional staffer and law enforcement official who was injured is a potential plaintiff.

    At a time when American government faces challenges of a kind not seen in generations, it can be useful to reach back for the legal tools that earlier Americans created when faced with serious threats to peaceful governance. History’s greatest threat to peaceful governance in this country was the Civil War — and some of the Jan. 6 rioters carried Confederate flags. The Klan Act is a legacy of that struggle. If it is now used to hold accountable a new cohort of people who use violence to try to subvert elections and democratic governance, it will be doing the job for which it was designed.


    Richard Primus is the Theodore J. St. Antoine Collegiate Professor at the University of Michigan Law School. Follow him on Twitter @Richard_Primus.
     
  5. Yeah... using some obscure statute from 1871 shows how tenuous the viability of this lawsuit is to succeed. it is a real stretch legally and this article just makes claims about what could be alleged but does not discuss the legal merits. a Civil suit still has standards of proof and evidence and pre trial motions to dismiss on 1st Amendment grounds and lack of evidence.

    legally this suit is extremely weak and purely political and the above article sounds more like an op ed than a legal analysis.
     
  6. How can it be an "insurrection"... where there were no firearms found?
     
  7. Tony Stark

    Tony Stark


    Ive seen numerous legal pundits on TV say there is a good chance civil suits will succeed.They also said there will be many of them (and there are 2 so far).We'll see.
     
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2021
  8. His life was put at risk because of their reckless disregard. Good enough for you?

    I don't even know what that means. Please explain.
     
    Tony Stark likes this.
  9. VEGASDESERT

    VEGASDESERT

    Breaking news: Judge Judy to preside over this case. Byrd to make
    sure nobody gets out of line.

    jj.JPG
     

  10. Swallwell can claim his life was in danger but he is not suing the people that actually put his life in danger directly. That means the claims and link between the action he is suing over and who he feels is responsible is more tenuous. Don't think politically with bias, think legally. They are suing based on an old statute about interfering with federal duties but they are not suing the people who interferred, they are suing Trump...Rudy,...the Proud Boys... the Keepers....

    As for my other statement....how do you see an organization like the Proud Boys....are they a formal entity with funding and status under the law like the Boy Scouts? Also are you suing the members of the Proud Boys who were there or the organization they belong to.? Proud Boys- "Our organization never told those people to go to the Capitol and destroy property and invade the chambers, those were reckless members acting on their own" Case dismissed.

    Problem is most of you think politically with bias.... legally suing all these groups for the actions of others with no legal link or control is always a tenuous lawsuit.
     
    #10     Mar 5, 2021