JUST IN: After years of litigation about Trump's civil liability for Jan. 6, the Justice Department is now moving to substitute itself for Trump in the lawsuit, saying Trump was acting in his official capacity on Jan. 6.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
So purposefully urging people to flood the Capitol to stop the ceremonial counting of the Electoral College votes, to take part in an insurrection, as addressed in U.S. Code 18 as being a serious offense is an "official" duty. ~ It's dark out right now, but I'm going to claim that means it's daytime
There was no reason to have a rally on January sixth since he didn't win. They have never provided any proof that the election wasn't legitimate. Therefore, getting people riled up to attack the capitol was not within the power of his office. It is not unlike his behavior now - revengeful.
I’m wondering this, too. Are determinations of what is or is not an official act a question of law or fact? I’m guessing law. Whether the act happened is likely the fact question.
I’m not sure most Americans are at all aware of what happens. Many get their news from questionable (at best) sources, and many don’t pay attention to the news at all. And then there are many who probably have no idea how to e headlines affect them because they don’t understand what is happening
I didn’t know an official act as the sitting President was to try and remain in power through violence after losing reelection. Who knew that was an official act? Must have missed that civics lesson.
To everyone blaming Roberts for this: your blame is misplaced. We have Justices Burger and Powell to thank for this one, since CIVIL liability immunity for presidents on official acts dates back to 1982’s Nixon v. Fitzgerald.
Ah, but who is declaring it "an official act"? That's right, the DOJ leadership that's in place because Trump was elected, which itself ties back to Roberts' decision on criminal immunity impeding the Jan. 6th criminal cases.
Criminal convictions are not a bar to office. It's not certain whether the immunity case would have prevented Trump's reelection or not, especially since lower courts had yet to resolve the questions SCOTUS remanded to them about the case before the election occurred.
Good reminder on it not being a formal bar, though a Jan 6 related conviction could have mattered. As for the remand, that's due to the breadth of Roberts' opinion - they could easily have not addressed the full sweep of Pres. criminal immunity while ruling prosecution was proper under these facts.
Several lower courts had determined that Trump's actions on Jan. 6 were NOT official acts when allowing civil suits to move forward. They could have found the same for his criminal indictments. Either way, and unfortunately, I don't think it would have influenced the outcome of the election.
No, no he wasn’t, and everybody knows this. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it. He was campaigning in his personal and private capacity, as a candidate for election (who had lost the election), which by definition, cannot be in his official capacity. Is this a reviewable decision?
I don’t think a decision has been made here. The DOJ is trying to step in, and both sides should have the opportunity to argue whether the actions involved in the case were official or not. If the judge decides they weren’t, DOJ won’t be able to substitute.
Both side will have to try to convince the judge whether the acts involved in the litigation were personal or official.
P.S. On this one, we have Justice Powell to blame, not Roberts. Nixon v. Fitzgerald established presidential civil immunity for official acts back in 1982.
Gee is anyone surprised 😮? Dear leader is in full control and his administration is there to serve only him. His needs and revenge requests will take priority. His presidency was and is all about him exacting revenge and rewriting history.
Acting in official capacity to destroy the capital and harm our government on his way out the door? Hm. Is this where 'treason' comes to call... Is that 'official' enough?
TRUMP was a candidate for office on J6-2021.
By promoting that attack
He wanted to stop a traditional transfer of powers to the next POTUS.
Many times Trump stated:
“We will not concede”
“We will not comply”
On his rallies, to his supporters.
That does nothing for Trump, he has no immunity for civil cases, they can make the arguement, doesn't do anything, pardoning people is likely to loosen their lips about motive (he told us to do it).
Comments
Weiss owes him now….
https://gofund.me/cf1b45e0
@50501colorado.bsky.social
@50501movement.bsky.social
My God.
“It was antifa”
“Well, they rly did nothing wrong”
“It was an official action and completely legitimate “
And he was being derelict in his duties while he sat and watched it on TV without doing anything to stop it.
RIP USA
Unconscionable
P.S. On this one, we have Justice Powell to blame, not Roberts. Nixon v. Fitzgerald established presidential civil immunity for official acts back in 1982.
TRUMP was a candidate for office on J6-2021.
By promoting that attack
He wanted to stop a traditional transfer of powers to the next POTUS.
Many times Trump stated:
“We will not concede”
“We will not comply”
On his rallies, to his supporters.
God save the Felon.
Never would I have guessed this would happen in this country.
Both South Korea and Brazil have a better justice system than the USA.
p.s: It's an "executive action" because Trump says it is - and who is to dispute him?