Posted on Jan 10, 2022
Trump's potential liability for Capitol riot faces major test in court
842
58
31
6
6
0
The judge in the lawsuitsTrump is trying to get immunity for January 6th:
"During a court hearing Monday, Judge Amit Mehta pointed out repeatedly that Trump on January 6 asked the crowd to march to the Capitol, but that he didn’t speak up for two hours asking people to stop the violence.
“The words are hard to walk back,” Mehta said. “You have an almost two-hour window where the President does not say, ‘Stop, get out of the Capitol. This is not what I wanted you to do.'”
“What do I do about the fact the President didn’t denounce the conduct immediately … and sent a tweet that arguably exacerbated things?” the judge asked. “Isn’t that, from a plausibility standpoint, that the President plausibly agreed with the conduct of the people inside the Capitol that day?”"
"During a court hearing Monday, Judge Amit Mehta pointed out repeatedly that Trump on January 6 asked the crowd to march to the Capitol, but that he didn’t speak up for two hours asking people to stop the violence.
“The words are hard to walk back,” Mehta said. “You have an almost two-hour window where the President does not say, ‘Stop, get out of the Capitol. This is not what I wanted you to do.'”
“What do I do about the fact the President didn’t denounce the conduct immediately … and sent a tweet that arguably exacerbated things?” the judge asked. “Isn’t that, from a plausibility standpoint, that the President plausibly agreed with the conduct of the people inside the Capitol that day?”"
Trump's potential liability for Capitol riot faces major test in court
Posted from wishtv.com
Donald Trump
Election 2020
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 4
6
6
0
Pasting a Penn State essay about OJ Simpson cases and criminal vs. civil law. While Donald Trump is accused of inciting a riot instead of committing a homicide, RP people need to understand it is not about prosecutors needing to have burden of proof, but about plaintiffs with preponderance of evidence.
https://sites.psu.edu/emberpassion/2020/01/30/the-o-j-simpson-trial-distinctions-between-criminal-and-civil-law/
https://sites.psu.edu/emberpassion/2020/01/30/the-o-j-simpson-trial-distinctions-between-criminal-and-civil-law/
(6)
(0)
Maj John Bell
When it comes to matters of free speech as a basis of civil liability, historically the "Brandenburg Test" [ Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 US 444 (1969)] has held sway. Of particular note is the third element of the Brandenburg Test:
"The speaker must directly advocate lawless action and not simply express a provocative or unpopular view that may result in public disorder."
In a civil case what changes is not the definition of "incitement" but the standard of proof. It shifts from beyond a reasonable doubt, to the preponderance of the evidence. The speaker must intend that other commit an offense causing physical. monetary or emotional injury. And their intentionality need not be expressed via an instruction for the specific offense committed but must be clearly implicitly understood.
Maybe there is proof, but so far, we get the same "nothing burger" from every one of Speaker Pelosi's attempts at a bloodless coup; claims of a mountain of evidence that never materialize.
"The speaker must directly advocate lawless action and not simply express a provocative or unpopular view that may result in public disorder."
In a civil case what changes is not the definition of "incitement" but the standard of proof. It shifts from beyond a reasonable doubt, to the preponderance of the evidence. The speaker must intend that other commit an offense causing physical. monetary or emotional injury. And their intentionality need not be expressed via an instruction for the specific offense committed but must be clearly implicitly understood.
Maybe there is proof, but so far, we get the same "nothing burger" from every one of Speaker Pelosi's attempts at a bloodless coup; claims of a mountain of evidence that never materialize.
(0)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
Maj John Bell - I suspect that this time Brandenburg isn't the hurdle you think it is. That goes right to the comments from the judge. He was not only bringing up the words spoken at the rally but also Trump's conduct after. Ultimately that is a way to get to state of mind, did he intend for his audience to perform lawless actions by what he said?
It's not the first time Trump's speech was put against that test. Last time he prevailed as a lot of his speech is "nudge, nudge, wink, wink'. It is very hard to pin down. But this time he directly had the opportunity to correct the misconception that marching in that way is not what he meant. His failure to act when he had a duty to do is telling.
It's not the first time Trump's speech was put against that test. Last time he prevailed as a lot of his speech is "nudge, nudge, wink, wink'. It is very hard to pin down. But this time he directly had the opportunity to correct the misconception that marching in that way is not what he meant. His failure to act when he had a duty to do is telling.
(2)
(0)
5
5
0
SPC Kevin Ford I wonder if 45 appointed this Judge?
..."If Trump’s call to action at the rally was misinterpreted by the crowd, and they still became violent, “Wouldn’t somebody who’s a reasonable person say, ‘That’s not what I meant?'” Mehta asked a lawyer arguing against the insurrection lawsuits. The judge pointed out that even Donald Trump Jr., another defendant in court Monday, texted the White House chief of staff before Trump spoke up, asking for the President to condemn the violence.
Trump and his close supporters say they’re protected by the First Amendment, that Trump and others were speaking on January 6 as public officials and that they weren’t agreeing to be part of a conspiracy with the violent crowd under the law.
Trump’s lawyer, Jesse Binnall, has argued everything Trump said while serving as President should be immune from liability — including on January 6 as well as in a call to Georgia officials asking them to “find” votes in early 2021 and at campaign rallies — and is protected from any lawsuits, because it was all part of his official actions as President."
..."If Trump’s call to action at the rally was misinterpreted by the crowd, and they still became violent, “Wouldn’t somebody who’s a reasonable person say, ‘That’s not what I meant?'” Mehta asked a lawyer arguing against the insurrection lawsuits. The judge pointed out that even Donald Trump Jr., another defendant in court Monday, texted the White House chief of staff before Trump spoke up, asking for the President to condemn the violence.
Trump and his close supporters say they’re protected by the First Amendment, that Trump and others were speaking on January 6 as public officials and that they weren’t agreeing to be part of a conspiracy with the violent crowd under the law.
Trump’s lawyer, Jesse Binnall, has argued everything Trump said while serving as President should be immune from liability — including on January 6 as well as in a call to Georgia officials asking them to “find” votes in early 2021 and at campaign rallies — and is protected from any lawsuits, because it was all part of his official actions as President."
(5)
(0)
Maj John Bell
OK, I had to laugh. Imagine if you will, President Trump sends out a tweet condemning the violence. A deafening crescendo of cell phone notifications rings out during the heat of the violence. Everyone stops, pulls out their cell phone, reads the text message, says "sorry" and heads for the metro station.
My face hurts
My face hurts
(0)
(0)
Maj John Bell
SGT (Join to see) - If you can't be handsome... be funny looking. That is me on a good day.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
He may be a liability but the new 'left of Lenin' Democrats in name only are trying to push stuff that Independents and moderate Republicans View as socialism and taking over the country (and taking away our existing freedoms/checks and balances) one law at a time. Centralizing the Voting is against the Constitution. Allowing citizens to vote without an ID is one of the many schemes the Democrats want as well as fast-tracking 10 million illegal aliens to be American citizens hoping that would help thicken the ranks of the pseudo-freedom loving Democrats. LTC Eugene Chu SGT (Join to see) SPC Kevin Ford Maj John Bell MSgt Robert "Rock" Aldi
(1)
(0)
Maj John Bell
SPC Kevin Ford - I believe this entire discussion has been about the 2020 election. Has Texas allowed the able-bodied to vote from their vehicles prior to the 2020 election? It strikes me as an unsustainable manpower burden for polling station workers (who I believe are mostly volunteers).
(0)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
Maj John Bell - It seems to have been a COVID response. From what I can tell by reading around it was always intended to be a feature for people with disabilities that was repurposed for COVID.
The law had read:
"physically unable to enter the polling place without personal assistance or likelihood of injuring the voter's health.”
They likely used that in COVID due to disease transmission impacting health of voters.
https://www.khou.com/article/news/politics/elections/texas-republicans-last-minute-challenge-to-drive-thru-voting-in-harris-county-dismissed-by-appeals-court/285-38a7c496-cdc4-42e4-ac4a-767ca2240f8b
The law had read:
"physically unable to enter the polling place without personal assistance or likelihood of injuring the voter's health.”
They likely used that in COVID due to disease transmission impacting health of voters.
https://www.khou.com/article/news/politics/elections/texas-republicans-last-minute-challenge-to-drive-thru-voting-in-harris-county-dismissed-by-appeals-court/285-38a7c496-cdc4-42e4-ac4a-767ca2240f8b
Texas Republicans' last-minute challenge to drive-thru voting in Harris County dismissed by...
The court filing from just before early voting began was the latest GOP effort to tamp down voting options in the state's most populous county.
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Maj John Bell President Biden going to Georgia after their college team one is kind of funny when the laws in New Hampshire are stricter than the ones in Georgia.
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
LTC (Join to see) New York laws are also reported to be stricter than Georgia and those rules were set by democrats. People are going to see right through this and that's why the Democrats are pushing these rule changes because they know the Democratic Fanny's are going to be burned in November of this year due to their stupid policies and lack of competence especially with the brokeback Joe Biden Administration
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google