UPDATE (Aug. 2, 2022, 12:27 p.m.): A federal judge ruled on Tuesday that civil lawsuits against Donald Trump related to the Jan. 6 attack can proceed, rejecting the former president’s claims of “absolutely immunity.”
Lawyers for former President Donald Trump formally asked a federal judge on Wednesday to grant him “absolute immunity” from civil lawsuits related to his role in the Jan. 6 attack.
This shows Trump and his inner circle realize that his plot to unlawfully stay in office after losing the 2020 election — and the violence it precipitated — put him in a dangerous legal position. And as I wrote in June, revelations the House Jan. 6 committee unearthed about Trump’s consciousness of guilt has only strengthened the civil cases against him.
U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta ruled in February that Trump could be held civilly liable for the Jan. 6 attack, because his pre-riot speech at the Ellipse included several calls to action. But lawyers for Trump filed an appeal Wednesday arguing the court “erred when it held that President Trump’s speech on matters of public concern was not within the scope of his absolute presidential immunity.”
Remarkably, Trump’s legal team went on to claim “Trump was acting well within the scope of ordinary presidential action” on Jan. 6, “when he engaged in open discussion and debate about the integrity of the 2020 election.” (That’s an interesting way to say, “stoked an attempted coup.”)
Trump’s lawyers also argued that examining his tweets and speeches baselessly alleging election fraud would amount to an “intrusion on the executive.”
It’s a desperate argument — and one Mehta already dispensed with in his February ruling.
Along with saying Trump stoked the mob during his Ellipse speech, Mehta said Trump’s repeated use of the word “we” (as in, “We’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue”) implied he and the armed rallygoers he sent to the Capitol were working toward a common goal. “That is the essence of a civil conspiracy,” Mehta wrote in his February decision.








