Lawyer Donald Trump argued at the court on Monday that the former president could not be sued for his deadly speech before January 6, 2021, attacked the Capitol because he acted in the scope of his official presidential task.
Trump’s lawyer, Jesse Binnall, told the court hearing that Trump was “immune,” or protected, from three lawsuits by members of the Democracy of Congress and two police officers.
“Executive immunity must be extensive,” Binall said.
Law demands, submitted by the Plaintiff include Democratic Representatives A.S.
Eric Swalwell and Jerry Nadler, argued that Trump was responsible for injuries to police and parliamentarians.
The big big in this case is the case of the Supreme Court from 1982 which holds that President is immune from lawsuits for their official actions.
During the five-hour field hearing, District Judge A.S.
Amit Mehta in Columbia District claimed a lawyer for both parties about the limits of this president’s immunity.
The Plaintiff of the Joseph seller against that Trump’s speech was a campaign event, not an official action and said it was “unimaginable” that the Supreme Court intended to protect the president of this kind of demands.
“There is no legitimate role to drink a rebellion intended for Congress,” the seller said.
Democratic parliamentarians have requested the 1871 law which is forwarded to fight the white supremacy of Ku Klux Klan which prohibits political intimidation.
The demands of the charges of accusations that the Capitol attack was a direct consequence of Trump’s actions, including the speech to thousands of supporters who then stormed the building to try to cancel the election of President Joe Biden.
Mehta did not issue a verdict on Monday, said during hearing that litigation raises difficult legal questions.
“If there is one thing, this hearing has shown that this is not an easy case,” said Mehta.
At one point, Mehta questioned whether Trump’s comments after the siege of the Capitol was intended to encourage rioters.
“What should I do about the fact that the President did not immediately criticize his behavior?” Mehta said to Binnall.
“Isn’t that, from a reasonable point of view, enough to at least reasonably conclude that the President agrees with the behavior of the people who are in the Capitol day?” Binnall replied: “The President cannot be subject to judicial actions for all kinds of damage for failing to do something.” Trump was harvested by the House of Representatives and was released by the Senate on charges of inciting riots, which also investigated by certain committees.
Swalwell’s lawsuit includes a similar claim against Trump allies who also spoke on January 6 rally, including Rudy Giuliani campaign lawyers, the oldest son of Trump Donald Trump Jr., and members of the Republic of Mo Brooks Congress.
Brooks, representing himself during hearing, asked Mehta to dismiss Swalwell’s claim against him.
Brooks argued that his remarks on Rally 6 Jan were within the scope of their duties as members of the house.
The law called the Westfall Law protects federal employees so as not to be demanded because of actions taken as part of their work.
Trump and co-defendants argue that their comments before the January 6 attack was a political speech protected by the first amendment of the Constitution M.S.
Two Capitol police officers who sued Trump were James wastingame and Sidney Himy.