WASHINGTON: Lawyers for former President Donald Trump and his colleagues argued on Monday that the statement of burners by Trump and another January 6 before the capitol riot was protected by a speech and in line with the official assignment.
Responding to a civil suit in line with the January 6 Congress investigation, Trump’s lawyer claimed that he acted in his official rights and had no intention of triggering violence when he asked thousands of supporters “march” hell “to disrupt the Senate certification from the results of the Election 2020.
“There was never an example of someone who succeeded in demanding a president for something that happened during his term of office,” said Trump Lawyer Jesse Binnall.
“Absolute immunity from the presidency is very important.” Hearing five hours in Washington before US District Judge Amit Mehta regarding Trump’s efforts to make Civil demands dismissed.
Democratic rep brought by representatives of democracy and two Capitol police officers, Claiming that the statement by Trump and Brooks on and before January 6 basically qualifies as part of a political campaign, and is therefore fair to litigate.
“What he said is a problem campaign, trying to secure the election,” said Joseph seller, one of the lawyers representing Swalwell’s lawsuit.
“This is a pure personal action.” The seller said Trump’s statement was an open and ambiguous call for political violence.
“It’s hard to imagine a scenario other than the president who traveled to Capitol himself and destroyed the door …
but of course he did it through the third party agent, through the crowd,” he said.
Binnall argues that Trump’s calls to thwart the Senate Vote Certification Process in line with the executive rights to comment or criticize the same branch of government.
“A President always has the authority to talk about whether there are other branches, frankly, can or must take action,” he said, referring the case where former President Barack Obama openly commented on the Supreme Court’s decision.
Binnall argues that Trump has submitted to the experiment during January 6 – the trial of the second impeachment, where he was released by the Senate of the majority of the Republicans.
“It’s their medicine and they fail,” he said.
“They don’t get apple bites here.” Mehta repeatedly cut a lawyer on both sides with questions and challenges.
Lawyer Giuliani Joseph Sibley at one point stated, “There’s no way you can interpret a statement made by one of the speakers to join a conspiracy to join the Capitol and commit a crime.” Mehta immediately asked, “Why not?” The judge then triggered Trump 6 January speech in detail.
“His last words went to the Capitol ‘and before it showed strength’ and fight.
‘Why does the invitation do not make sense to do what the rioters do?” Mehta asked.
“The words are difficult to return.” Mehta at one point focused on silence for hours from Trump as his supporters fought against the Capitol and D.c police officers Police officers and went berserk through the building.
He questioned his length of length about whether the failure or rejection to condemn the attack as happened could be interpreted as an agreement.
Binnall responded, “You cannot have a situation where the President is obliged to take certain actions or say certain things or subject to litigation.” Brooks has conducted Westfall law, a statue that protects federal employees from demanding actions taken while carrying out their official assignments.
However, the lawyer of the Justice Department Brian Boynton told the court that Brooks had to be rejected as such protection.
The fact that Brooks “advocated for the election of Trump with this comment on the trump rally did make this campaign activity,” said Boynton.
Brooks, who represents himself in the process of Monday, told the court that the representative home ethics committee refused to pursue charges against him.
He added that there was no sustainable campaign to participate in January 6.
“The election campaign ended on November 3,” Brooks said.
“Everything after that is a legal process.” (AP)