• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Lawsuits against Trump

shemp

a flimsy character...perfidious and despised
shemp
Joined
Nov 5, 2002
Messages
69,461
Location
The U.S., a wretched hive of scum and villainy.
I know we have umpteen threads about Trump already, but I think there should be one more, specifically to discuss civil lawsuits (not criminal charges) against Donald Trump. I don't think this topic fits into any of the present threads about him. If the moderators feel differently, feel free to merge it somewhere.

This morning, Mississippi Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson filed a civil action naming Donald Trump and Rudy Giuliani:

(CNN) - Former President Donald Trump and attorney Rudy Giuliani are being accused of conspiring with the far-right groups Proud Boys and Oath Keepers to incite the January 6 insurrection in a civil lawsuit filed Tuesday in federal court by the Democratic chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee that cites a post-Civil War law designed to combat violence and intimidation by the Ku Klux Klan.

The lawsuit, filed by Mississippi Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson in his personal capacity, is the first civil action filed against the former President related to the attack at the US Capitol and comes days after the Senate acquitted Trump in his impeachment trial.

If it proceeds, it would mean the former President and others would be subject to discovery and depositions, potentially exposing details and evidence that weren't released during the Senate impeachment trial.
Click to expand...

Being subject to discovery and depositions may bring out evidence that the House managers couldn't get, such as emails and phone records, and may compel testimony by others around Trump. I look forward to seeing just what this lawsuit digs up.

I'll get the popcorn maker going.

:popcorn1
 
And when that POS Trump refuses to pay his creditors (which he often does) for the millions and millions of dollars that he owes to them, then I expect one will seen a great wave of lawsuits filed against Trump.
 
Crossbow said:
And when that POS Trump refuses to pay his creditors (which he often does) for the millions and millions of dollars that he owes to them, then I expect one will seen a great wave of lawsuits filed against Trump.
Click to expand...

... while his pool of available lawyers keeps shrinking. The pool of available competent lawyers may already be dry.
 
It will be a war of attrition to deplete Trump's resources for lawyers.
Trump might hire actually someone good when it comes to important things like money instead of irrelevant things like impeachment.
 
Crossbow said:
And when that POS Trump refuses to pay his creditors (which he often does) for the millions and millions of dollars that he owes to them, then I expect one will seen a great wave of lawsuits filed against Trump.
Click to expand...

This. I supect the suits from people who Donnie owed money to will do much more damage then any other liablity he has.
 
The SJC has ruled that the President is immune from lawsuits related to his official duties. Of course, we may all reasonably claim that trying to overturn an election is hardly an official duty, but the WAPO article says that the exemption has been interpreted broadly.

One could argue that Trump was defending the legitimacy of our democracy by trying to reject fraudulent election results. Even though the claims of fraud have been dismissed by the courts, it may be enough that he genuinely[1] believed that the results were fraudulent and required fixing. The fact that he was mistaken wouldn't mean he wasn't actually doing what he regarded as his duty.

Few people here would take the argument seriously, I'm sure, but I wonder how many justices would buy it.

[1] I know, it's awkward to use that term in a Trumpian context.
 
phiwum said:
The SJC has ruled that the President is immune from lawsuits related to his official duties. Of course, we may all reasonably claim that trying to overturn an election is hardly an official duty, but the WAPO article says that the exemption has been interpreted broadly.

One could argue that Trump was defending the legitimacy of our democracy by trying to reject fraudulent election results. Even though the claims of fraud have been dismissed by the courts, it may be enough that he genuinely[1] believed that the results were fraudulent and required fixing. The fact that he was mistaken wouldn't mean he wasn't actually doing what he regarded as his duty.

Few people here would take the argument seriously, I'm sure, but I wonder how many justices would buy it.

[1] I know, it's awkward to use that term in a Trumpian context.
Click to expand...

The lawsuit is suing him in his personal capacity, not official.

Presidents are historically afforded broad immunity from lawsuits for actions they take in their role as commander in chief. But the lawsuit filed Tuesday was brought against Trump in his personal, not official, capacity and alleges that none of the behavior at issue had to do with his responsibilities as president.
Click to expand...
 
Stacyhs said:
The lawsuit is suing him in his personal capacity, not official.
Click to expand...

I'm not surprised they said that. It just seems to me that the first obvious defense is that this was part of his official capacity, not personal. It would be up to the plaintiffs to show that this was indeed personal.

And maybe they can do that. I think it's very plausibly not official, but I'm not on the SJC and I genuinely have no idea how they might view it.

The actions on Jan 6 and the preceding two months aren't personal matters just because the plaintiff says so. If the defendant disputes that characterization (which they surely will, unless I'm terribly mistaken), then it's up to the court to decide.
 
Seems to me proving such a case against Trump is tricky and full of possible technicalities that he could wriggle out with, but I would guess that Proud Boys and Oathkeepers are going to have a lot more trouble escaping liability here, which is nice.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Seems to me proving such a case against Trump is tricky and full of possible technicalities that he could wriggle out with, but I would guess that Proud Boys and Oathkeepers are going to have a lot more trouble escaping liability here, which is nice.
Click to expand...

Not sure about them. It will be hard to make a case that actions by individual members are part of the group's responsibility unless you can find proof of leadership urging them to attack police or enter the capitol.

Maybe there is such evidence. Would be great, if so.

Guiliani is being sued as an individual without any claims of official privilege, so his case is easier in that respect. His influence is a lot less than Trump's however, so that works in his favor I guess.
 
phiwum said:
Not sure about them. It will be hard to make a case that actions by individual members are part of the group's responsibility unless you can find proof of leadership urging them to attack police or enter the capitol.

Maybe there is such evidence. Would be great, if so.

Guiliani is being sued as an individual without any claims of official privilege, so his case is easier in that respect. His influence is a lot less than Trump's however, so that works in his favor I guess.
Click to expand...

Several of them already have been criminally charged with conspiracy. There's very damning evidence that both the Oathkeepers and Proud Boys planned for coordinated anti-government violence in advance.

The Unite the Right lawsuit showed just how devastating the legal process can be to these groups. All the proof of coordination is right there, laying just beneath the surface waiting to be discovered, or in the case of many of these Jan 6 rioters, laying out in plain sight.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Several of them already have been criminally charged with conspiracy. There's very damning evidence that both the Oathkeepers and Proud Boys planned for coordinated anti-government violence in advance.
Click to expand...

Good.

The Unite the Right lawsuit showed just how devastating the legal process can be to these groups. All the proof of coordination is right there, laying just beneath the surface waiting to be discovered, or in the case of many of these Jan 6 rioters, laying out in plain sight.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the lawsuit against these groups is stronger than I was wildass guessing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom