Mulitple legal pundits can always justify a lawsuit. In fact there are truly very little limitations as to what you can sue over or who you can sue. I can sue you tomorrow if i wanted to. the existence of a lawsuit proves nothing sadly. I can find legal pundits to support the filing of any lawsuit..in fact I can find a lawyer to literally file any lawsuit.
One is a University of Michigan Law School Professor and another I remember was a Georgetown Law School Professor.All the pundits I seen also said a criminal case would go nowhere so I find their opinions credible.Trumps own attorneys warned him he was opening himself up to civil liability if his supporters got violent.Time will tell who is right and who is wrong.
Let's be clear, a law school professor is just expressing an opinion, not a fact. I can find you law professors who claimed the lawsuits about the election fraud were valid and should have won... Neither side will ever be able to get a jury together and neither side will agree to a judge trial because of bias.
Haven't been really following this thread too closely, but why do you say this? Typically, imo, either side can demand a jury. If they don't, there will be a judge's decision. If one or more do, there will be a jury trial. They don't have to agree to a judge. Nor do they have to agree on all jurors.
Can you image finding a jury who is not biased or is without knowledge of the events that occurred that day. When the law is not on your side you argue the facts and when the facts are not on your side you argue the law. this was demonstrated in the last impeachment trial. When the facts are on your side you want a jury trial. When the law is on your side you want a judge. Let's assume the first lawsuit requests a jury trial.....thew thing is if it is asserting a federal law that gives plaintiffs the right to sue, it might exclude juries all togehter. If you want a judge trial, you want one in a blue state appointed jurisdiction, other side will fight jurisdiction left and right. It will be a real shit show. I dont have time to pull the law but it might have jurisdiction and remedies in the law being cited for the lawsuit. This will never get to trial because there are hundreds of defenses and summary judgements that will be thrown up.
re read your article cited.... the Michigan law professor does nothing but say the civil statute could be a way to hold trump accountable..... does not sound very convincing.... "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." Sounds like Don Lemon or cuomo giving their opinion....
He does sound convincing that the cases are credible. 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
They should just wait until the criminal investigations are completed and any arrests. Do what the government did against Al Capone. Simply, if the criminal investigations fail...go after him for Tax Evasion. Had that failed...go after him via lawsuits as the court did against Capone even when he was behind bars for Tax Evasion...he got sued and lost those cases too. Al Capone boasted..."They Can’t Collect Legal Taxes From Illegal Money"...years later in prison... Capone as a man succumbing to dementia as a result of neurosyphilis, an infection of the central nervous system caused by the sexually transmitted infection syphilis. Prior to advances in medicine which made syphilis a commonly treatable condition, it wasn't uncommon for it to have serious negative effects on the brain. Capone was first diagnosed with syphilis while serving his 11-year sentence for tax fraud (he was also diagnosed with gonorrhoea and was suffering the effects of cocaine withdrawal). Following his transfer to Alcatraz Federal Penitentiary in 1934, he began to show signs of confusion and disorientation. He was officially diagnosed with neurosyphilis in 1938 and spent the remainder of his sentence in the prison's hospital wing. Eventually, his wife Mae's appeal for parole was granted in 1939, due in part to Capone's reduced mental faculties. Shortly after his release, Capone moved to Palm Island, Florida, where he would reside for the rest of his life. In 1942, he was one of the first Americans to receive the antibiotic penicillin as treatment for syphilis after the drug began to be mass-produced. This helped to slow the progression of the disease, although the damage to his brain was irreversible, and in 1946, Capone was deemed by medical and psychiatric experts to have the mental capabilities of a 12-year-old. In January 1947, Capone had a stroke, and subsequently contracted a form of pneumonia. The next day, he suffered from cardiac arrest. He died three days later at home from apoplexy (internal bleeding) at the age of 48. ---------- Trump's record with women and his fear of germs / infections...could be a fitting end for him too. It's a proper comparison. wrbtrader