Eric Swalwell sues Trump and close allies over Capitol riot in second major insurrection lawsuit

[Tony Stark]

Even Trumps own lawyers warned him he could be held liable


https://abc7.com/capitol-riot-will-trump-declare-martial-law-speech-before-melania-response/9565200/

WASHINGTON -- In the wake of Wednesday's assault on the nation's Capitol, President Donald Trump has been advised he potentially could face civil liability connected to his role in encouraging supporters who went on to storm Congress, sources familiar with the conversations told ABC News.



As ABC News previously reported, sources tell ABC News White House Counsel Pat Cipollone advised the president that he could face legal jeopardy for encouraging his supporters to storm the Capitol building, according to sources familiar with their discussions.

 

[userque]

Can you image finding a jury who is not biased or is without knowledge of the events that occurred that day. When the law is not on your side you argue the facts and when the facts are not on your side you argue the law. this was demonstrated in the last impeachment trial.

When the facts are on your side you want a jury trial. When the law is on your side you want a judge. Let's assume the first lawsuit requests a jury trial.....thew thing is if it is asserting a federal law that gives plaintiffs the right to sue, it might exclude juries all togehter.

If you want a judge trial, you want one in a blue state appointed jurisdiction, other side will fight jurisdiction left and right. It will be a real shit show.


I dont have time to pull the law but it might have jurisdiction and remedies in the law being cited for the lawsuit.

This will never get to trial because there are hundreds of defenses and summary judgements that will be thrown up.

I understand. However, my concern is not whether they can find an unbiased jury or judge; it is that they can go to trial, should the plaintiff decide to.

Now, perhaps the defendant can win pre-trial. Perhaps they settle. Perhaps the case is dismissed on other grounds. Perhaps the plaintiff shuts it down.

My point is that the American legal system doesn't fail simply because, allegedly, an unbiased jury can't be found, or allegedly, an unbiased judge can't be found. If this were so, Blacks and other minorities in the past, and in the present, never would have been tried.

If you sue, and your case is viable, you will have a Judge, or a jury trial, if desired.

If a jury trial is elected, a jury will be assigned. Neither side can continually dismiss jurors ad nauseam, effectively preventing trial.

In sum, they can have a jury trial, or non-jury trail, assuming they survive pretrial filings/rulings. This is so, regardless the potential biases of the Judge and jury.

 

[El OchoCinco]

He does sound convincing that the cases are credible.




But Trump and others who instigated or participated in the attack also face another kind of legal exposure: They might be held liable in lawsuits and required to pay monetary damages to people who were injured. These civil cases may offer the best chance of holding Trump accountable.

Unlike impeachment, lawsuits are not dependent on getting two-thirds of the Senate to agree — something that in this case would have required at least 17 Republicans to vote against a president of their own party. Unlike criminal cases, they don’t depend on a prosecutor’s willingness to take the political risks and expend the considerable resources needed to bring charges against a former president.

And unlike a criminal conviction, which would require getting a jury to agree unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump broke laws in connection with the riot, a civil judgment only requires convincing a jury (or sometimes just a judge) that Trump “more likely than not” engaged in unlawful behavior

They MAY be held liable...

really convincing to you?


he just explained that lawsuits are not based on getting 2/3 of the Senate and you would have to convince a jury..

basically he said the sky is blue because everyone knows to win a civil case you have to convince a jury. However he did not state a position on the case itself.

Read with objective eyes...

 

[El OchoCinco]

I understand. However, my concern is not whether they can find an unbiased jury or judge; it is that they can go to trial, should the plaintiff decide to.

Now, perhaps the defendant can win pre-trial. Perhaps they settle. Perhaps the case is dismissed on other grounds. Perhaps the plaintiff shuts it down.

My point is that the American legal system doesn't fail simply because, allegedly, an unbiased jury can't be found, or allegedly, an unbiased judge can't be found. If this were so, Blacks and other minorities in the past, and in the present, never would have been tried.

If you sue, and your case is viable, you will have a Judge, or a jury trial, if desired.

If a jury trial is elected, a jury will be assigned. Neither side can continually dismiss jurors ad nauseam, effectively preventing trial.

In sum, they can have a jury trial, or non-jury trail, assuming they survive pretrial filings/rulings. This is so, regardless the potential biases of the Judge and jury.

That is not my point, the point is this is a completely subjective political case to sue Trump..
You just said, if your case is viable, you will have a trial....well how to you support proof that your case is viable against Trump. He says he did not storm the capitol nor tell his people to enter illegally and attack the people, there is no criminal proof he planned the attack or gave any support to the attackers or has any personal connection to the hundreds of people who were arrested. because of this no FBI nor DOJ case will hold up against him.

In the civil trial you can show he wanted the objections and Pnce to not count the vote. The Senate objectors were legal and Pence refused. I am telling you it is quite an uphill battle to show Trump is liable for damages to a specific person. read the law, can the Congressmen prove Trump is liable for their fear from these assclown attackers? it require too big a stretch for a civil trial and you did have a threshold of burden of proof to get to a trial.

The pleadings will be making a political argument rather than a factual one and can be defeated in dismissal. Plaintiffs have to prove Trump directed or commanded his people to commit those acts.

You all acting like I support that piece of shit, I don't but I support the law and the arguments made by Trump's counsel in the impeachment would be more than enough to defeat the lawsuit.

 

[userque]

That is not my point, the point is this is a completely subjective political case to sue Trump..
You just said, if your case is viable, you will have a trial....well how to you support proof that your case is viable against Trump. He says he did not storm the capitol nor tell his people to enter illegally and attack the people, there is no criminal proof he planned the attack or gave any support to the attackers or has any personal connection to the hundreds of people who were arrested. because of this no FBI nor DOJ case will hold up against him.

In the civil trial you can show he wanted the objections and Pnce to not count the vote. The Senate objectors were legal and Pence refused. I am telling you it is quite an uphill battle to show Trump is liable for damages to a specific person. read the law, can the Congressmen prove Trump is liable for their fear from these assclown attackers? it require too big a stretch for a civil trial and you did have a threshold of burden of proof to get to a trial.

The pleadings will be making a political argument rather than a factual one and can be defeated in dismissal. Plaintiffs have to prove Trump directed or commanded his people to commit those acts.

You all acting like I support that piece of shit, I don't but I support the law and the arguments made by Trump's counsel in the impeachment would be more than enough to defeat the lawsuit.

Here is you statement that I replied to:

Neither side will ever be able to get a jury together and neither side will agree to a judge trial because of bias.

Hopefully I've illustrated how either side can indeed get a jury or non-jury trial, as neither has nothing to do with either side agreeing to anything.

Whether or not a case is viable or not, is a different argument. One which I haven't yet entered.

 

[piezoe]

Too bad Moscow Mitch wouldn't qualify as an impartial juror, now that he has already expressed the opinion that Trump is, in effect, guilty of inciting a riot and has expressed the opinion that Trump can be held liable in a civil suit for anything he did as President. Sadly, I guess that would eliminate Moscow Mitch from the jury pool.

 

[El OchoCinco]

Too bad Moscow Mitch wouldn't qualify as an impartial juror, now that he has already expressed the opinion that Trump is, in effect, guilty of inciting a riot and has expressed the opinion that Trump can be held liable in a civil suit for anything he did as President. Sadly, I guess that would eliminate Moscow Mitch from the jury pool.

But his statement is out there which can be played over and over and over and over and over again.....especially when he sucks the Trump dick in 2022....

 

[Tony Stark]

They MAY be held liable...

really convincing to you?

Credible? Yes.

A non credible case with no chance sounds like this

 

[piezoe]

Credible? Yes.

A non credible case with no chance sounds like this

This speaks to the absence of integrity among Republican lawyer-politicians such as Ted Cruz. He's a graduate of Harvard Law School. I imagine his Law School Professors would like to see his J.D. revoked. He must be an embarrassment to them.

 

[Tony Stark]

Expert explains how Dems just brilliantly forced Trump to respond under oath for the Capitol riot

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-lawsuits/https://www.rawstory.com/trump-lawsuits/

On MSNBC Saturday, former federal prosecutor Joyce Vance outlined the legal problems that the new civil suits against former President Donald Trump will create for him.

"These civil cases are a very interesting aspect of the search for accountability," said Vance. "We've seen the flawed impeachment procedure, which failed to hold him accountable despite evidence. We're looking at the criminal process and criminal investigations ongoing, too early to conclude whether that would ultimately reach former President Trump and his inner circle. These civil cases are a direct and potentially more quick route for the American people to gain the truth."

"Representative [Eric] Swalwell's complaint is particularly interesting because it raises claims under the Ku Klux Klan Act, which talks about interference with Congress' performance of official duties, and files suit in his individual capacity, arguing interference and interference with his well-being and the well-being of others," said Vance. "Only one of the claims in this complaint have to survive a motion to dismiss, an early preliminary motion that the defendants will file in order to begin the discovery process, and that's part of the legal proceedings in the civil case where a litigant like Representative Swalwell has the ability to take depositions to ask for documents where there's actually an obligation that the defendants respond under oath."

"This could get interesting relatively quickly," concluded Vance, although she added, "It's too early, I think, to assess whether the suit has a chance of success on the merits."