Donald Trump was concerned about a number of things after the incident on Jan. 6, including the possibility of his second impeachment. However, in the final days of the president’s term, the Republican was also afraid of a criminal accusation of incitement.
Trump’s legal counsel “raised increasing anxiety” about Trump’s “potential criminal responsibility,” according to the Washington Post two days after the violence.
Attorneys informed him he may face legal consequences for inciting a crowd, according to story. Trump’s then-assistant told CNN that he was “concerned” about being prosecuted.
That hasn’t happened thus far, at least. Trump, on the other hand, has been sued — numerous times — for his role in the insurgent attack. Two Democratic members of Congress, Bennie Thompson of Mississippi and Eric Swalwell of California, filed separate charges against the former president in March.
(Thompson later dropped his complaint after being appointed chair of the House select committee investigating the incident on Jan. 6.)
Two different groups of police officers sued the former president in the months after the pro-Trump riot, each of whom is still struggling with the negative physical and mental impacts of the incident.
Trump’s attorneys argued that he had “total immunity” in conduct relating to his presidency, and that the civil charges should be dismissed. According to NBC News, such an argument was dismissed by a federal judge.
In his opinion, US District Judge Amit Mehta noted, “To deny a president immunity from civil damages is no small step.” “The court is very aware of the significance of its decision.” However, the alleged facts in this case are unprecedented, and the court feels that its conclusion is in keeping with the goals of such immunity.”
The Voting Rights Act is in jeopardy thanks to a Trump-appointed judge. To be sure, Trump has had a number of legal setbacks recently, but this is undoubtedly one of the most significant, in part because of the ruling’s conclusions and in part because of the anticipated ramifications.
Trump’s role in the incident is tough to dismiss, according to Mehta: The judge determined that the then-president summoned supporters to Washington, D.C., and deployed them to the Capitol, well aware that violence would erupt shortly.
Trump’s Jan. 6 address was “similar to telling an aroused throng that corn-dealers starve the poor in front of the corn-home,” dealer’s Mehta wrote, referring to the Republican’s own statements.
So, now what? Of course, the district court’s judgement will be appealed, but it also leaves Trump and his staff “subject to another rush of deposition subpoenas and document demands,” according to Politico’s article.
In a rare and significant judicial decision, the ruling also holds Trump potentially responsible for conduct while he was president.”
And, if Trump is found guilty in these legal lawsuits, he might be forced to pay damages out of his own pocket. Keep an eye on it.