President Donald Trump’s return to the Oval Office this week is a huge disappointment to those who hoped that his criminal trials would lead to accountability for his alleged crimes. It’s also a disappointment to those who hoped that the flurry of criminal charges against him, most notably former special counsel Jack Smith’s 2020 election-rigging trial, would sway enough Americans to vote for democracy. Will convince about the danger posed.
But in the wake of Trump’s criminal trials in Washington, Florida and Georgia, along with his unconditional discharge in the New York hush money case, a series of cases still hold Trump, The Proud Boys and other defendants accountable. I am trying to bring For his role in the attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.
One such civil case, Smith v. TrumpFiled in August 2021 by eight U.S. Capitol Police officers harmed during the Jan. 6 riots, it also seeks to prevent further political violence under the new administration, one of the leading lawsuits claims. This could fill the void of Smith’s own dysfunction. Lawsuits against Trump while he hopes a potential order will set the record straight on the impact of Jan. 6., The plaintiffs also seek damages and a jury to find Trump liable for the conspiracy, among other violations of federal and district laws.
Edward Kasper, co-leader of the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and acting associate chief counsel, argues that the case is one of the last legal attempts to hold Trump accountable.
“Civil liability is really the only way that can solve it. [the harm to officers]And it may be standing on the last leg, but it is certainly one of the most important means of achieving accountability for the events of January 6,” he told Salon in a phone interview.
That importance is underscored by Trump’s 2021 impeachment hearings, his return to the presidency and the January 6 immediate pardon of nearly 1,500 convicted rioters, he added.
According to the Justice Department, about 140 police officers were attacked during the attack on the Capitol, including about 80 members of the US Capitol Police. A Capitol Police officer, Brian Skunk, suffered a stroke and died after being injured in the line of duty.
The eight Capital Police officers suing in Smith v. Trump argue that they suffered significant physical, psychological and emotional injuries as a result of actions by Trump and his allies to block the certification of the 2020 election. They say they were “violently assaulted, spat on, tear gassed, bear sprayed, racially abused, and intimidated” because they “took the Capitol.” risked their lives to protect them from a violent, mass attack”. on complaint.
He wrote that those wounds remain till today.
Barbara McCode, the former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, said in a phone interview that Smith v. Trump, along with other civil cases on Jan. 6, could be among the “most important cases out there” because of Trump’s criminal charges. have disappeared.
“With the courts finding that this activity was within Trump’s capacity as a candidate and not as president, it may be that the civil cases are where we see the liability,” McQuade told Salon. ” He further said that 1997 Clinton v. Jones The ruling states that, unlike in criminal cases, a sitting president “can be compelled to defend a civil case.”
Apart from obtaining unconditional relief, And In their compensatory and punitive damages, the plaintiffs ask that a jury find the defendants liable for six crimes, ranging from conspiracy to interfere with civil rights to the DC Bias Crimes Act, Violations include assault and battery.
They charge the defendants, in part, with infringement. Ku Klux Klan ActAccording to Darryl A. H. Miller, a scholar of civil rights and constitutional law at the University of Chicago, an 1871 statute criminalized “conspiracy to use force, threats, or threats to prevent federal officers from doing their jobs.” ..
“In the 19Th century, the targets of violence and intimidation were freedmen and their federal government allies in the South,” Miller told Salon, arguing that the law only addresses the kind of situations presented on January 6, 2021. were.” In 21St century, the targets were those responsible for ensuring a peaceful transfer of power to the seat of national government.”
The plaintiffs were among a group of officers who worked to secure Congress and protect lawmakers and their staff from mobs who stormed the Capitol. In the lawsuit, they describe being physically assaulted by rioters, exposed to noxious pollutants deployed by the rioters, and emotionally damaged by the experience.
McQuade compared the plaintiff’s case to civil cases that occurred in 2017 in Charlottesville, Va. It was born out of the “Unite the Right” rally, where a far-right terrorist killed one person and injured dozens. At the end of one such trial, a federal jury found The organizers of White Supremacy were held liable for conspiracy to intimidate, harass and harm, and awarded the plaintiffs $26 million in damages.
“That is, I think, some of the steps are not only to provide accountability for individual plaintiffs and to get some compensation for their losses, but I also think that it allows history to record that the losses were happened and the courts found that the law had been broken.” he said.
What distinguishes Smith v. Trump from the three other civil cases pending on Jan. 6 is its broad list of about 40 defendants, Kasper told Salon, including Trump and his 2020 campaign., The Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, as well as their leaders Enrique Terrio and Stewart Rhodes – who were both Sentenced 2023 for plotting a federal coup for his role in organizing the Capital Attack.
The lawsuit has already begun its merits discovery period, in which the parties exchange relevant evidence to find the facts regarding the claims, for the groups and individuals named in the lawsuit. That part of the case, Casper said, is moving “full steam ahead,” with discovery scheduled to end in July.
Part of the lawsuit against Trump, while on a parallel track, is proceeding differently, however, as the court considers Trump’s motion to dismiss the case. Trump has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing for his actions on Jan. 6 and has argued that presidential immunity should shield him from civil liability.
Miller said that while existing precedent from the Nixon administration offers presidential immunity for government actions, the main questions about Trump’s ability to invoke it in these suits revolve around whether the Jan. 6 His participation in events was in an official capacity or in a private capacity. A presidential candidate.
If the case moves forward, however, a Supreme Court decision in the summer of 2024 would extend the presidential immunity for official acts in criminal cases, allowing information or evidence obtained from ‘official’ acts to be used. Therefore, a “wrinkle” may be created by limiting the ability to litigate. that could prevent a jury from seeing evidence critical to proving a civil conspiracy,” he added.
Special counsel Jack Smith found a way around that hurdle in his case against Trump. After last year’s Trump v. United States ruling required Smith to prepare his Jan. 6 treason case against Trump to remove “official” acts, the prosecutor named an unindicted co-conspirator and the Trump White House. I cut the accusations about the communication with my staff. References to private acts, such as Trump’s campaign speech on the Alps, which critics say sparked a riot in the Capitol, were indicted.
Such actions are already the basis for claims against the president in Smith v. Trump. Indeed, a 2023 federal appeals court Ruler In a related Jan. 6 lawsuit — Blassingham v. Trump — also pointed to Ellipse’s speech in rebutting Trump’s claim of immunity, determining that he was acting in his capacity as a candidate.
US District Court for the District of Columbia strong Smith v. Trump, Blasingham v. Trump and four other cases last year on the immunity question for purposes of discovery and summary judgment. Because the appeals court based its 2023 ruling on the facts presented by the plaintiffs, it allowed Trump to dispute his allegations and present his own facts related to his immunity claim for consideration in the district court. The investigation into the matter ended last month.
Casper said Trump’s legal advisers are expected to file a brief on their immunity in the lawsuit by the end of this month, and the plaintiffs will file their responses in U.S. District Court in February.
Trump’s lead attorney did not respond to an email request for comment.
Asked if the lawsuit could hold Trump to any account now that his criminal cases are over and he’s back in the White House, McQuade suggested it might. He said that while civil actions may reduce the pursuit of justice, civil liability still offers some form of accountability to plaintiffs for damages.
“In some ways, making a civil decision can help. [the plaintiffs] Overall, maybe even more than a criminal case,” he argued, adding that, because Trump can’t recuse himself or other defendants in the case, “a civil case makes him more accountable than a criminal case. Could do a better job of stopping. This may be the case.”
Casper said the plaintiffs are hoping that by bringing to light the full extent of the “human toll” that took place on Jan. 6, the lawsuit will encourage Americans to resolve their differences through the political process — and that kind of political violence. will prevent it from happening again. .
Physically attacking and brutalizing others just because your chosen candidate lost an election “isn’t something you can do and get away with,” Casper said, expressing What is the plaintiff’s hope that the public will get from this case? “There are consequences for engaging in this kind of insanity, and we hope that when the public sees the public evidence as a result of this trial, they will understand the damage that this kind of violence has done to individuals and to the country. place.”
But Miller said he doubts that will come to fruition. Given the election results, he said he doubted any verdict against the defendants — including Trump — would affect the perception of the American public.
Instead, he argued, “this is a case of racism, to prevent the truth of January 6 from being erased from history.”
