2 Capitol Police Officers Sue Trump Over Capitol Riot

I recently wrote about the litigation by Rep. Eric Swalwell against former President Donald Trump as a serious miscalculation that could cause a legal vindication for Trump either about the trial or appellate levels. In my opinion, the litigation contravenes free speech in addition to controlling case law from the Supreme Court. Two Capitol Police officers injured during the riot, James Blassingame and Sidney Hemby, have sued on similar grounds together with a number of the exact inherent flaws. The 40-page lawsuit was composed by D.C. lawyer Patrick Malone, who formerly filed ethics complaints against attorneys representing the Trump effort or the Republican party.  Trump attorneys many view this litigation as a greater opportunity than a liability for their client.

The officers hunt $75,000 in damages in their criticism but also request unspecified punitive damages.
The criticism introduces five counts. There are in fact six”points” listed but there are just two count fives from the criticism.  The next”Count Five” is really just a demand for punitive damages, rather than an authentic separate tort.  The first five points are:

COUNT ONE (Directing Assault and Battery)

COUNT THREE (Directing Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)
COUNT FOUR (Violation of a Public Safety Statute: D.C. Code § 22-1322 — Incitement to Riot)

The litigation notably comprises exactly the same claim of intentional infliction of mental distress that was raised by Swalwell.  In 2011, the court ruled 8-1 in favor of Westboro Baptist Church, an infamous group of zealots who engaged in homophobic protests at the funerals of slain American troops. In rejecting a lawsuit against the church constitutional grounds,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote:”speech is powerful. It could stir people to act, transfer them into tears of both joy and regret, and — since it did here — inflict pain. But, before us, we cannot react to this pain by punishing the speaker” Roberts distinguished our nation from hateful figures such as the Westboro group, noting that”as a nation we’ve chosen another course — to shield much hurtful speech on public issues to make sure that we don’t stifle public debate.”
The complaint adds a strained”aiding and abetting” claim in addition to the direct promise of assault and battery life.  By way of example, the complaint alleges”Trump assisted and abetted his followers’ battery and assault James Blassingame and Sidney Hemby during his suggestive words and reinforcement heading around and on January 6, 2021, that were spoken from his place of authority and gave his own message extra weight” Imagine what would have been free speech at the United States if people could be prosecuted because of their”suggestive words and reinforcement” for third parties who afterwards violate law.
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled in 1969 that even calling violence is protected under the First Amendment unless there is a danger of”imminent lawless action and is very likely to incite or produce such action”
Trump never called for violence and told his followers to go to the Capitol peacefully to”cheer” on those difficult the votes.Such protests in capitals are typical and, although reckless, Trump’s speech may as easily be translated as a demand for demonstration rather than violence.
Notably, the Ku Klux Klan leader Clarence Brandenburg also known to a planned parade on Congress after declaring that”revengeance” may be obtained to the desperation of the president and Congress. The Supreme Court nevertheless resisted the conviction.
The court has rejected these kinds of disagreements as a danger to free speech in our society. In a different scenario, NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., the court overturned a ruling against the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People after one official announced,”If we catch any of you going in any of them racist stores, we are gonna break your damn neck.” That was ruled as the hyperbolic language of advocacy.
The complaint also comes with an immediate promise of incitement to riot.  This will force the courtroom to answer the issue raised in the next impeachment. I have repeatedly requested in columns why, when incitement was clear and people, there has to be a criminal charge caused by Trump. A wide variety of legal experts insisted this was a powerful and clear example for such a fee and District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine garnered widespread acclaim by declaring shortly after the Jan. 6 riot he was investigating Trump for a potential incitement bill. Then nothing happened. That was strange given the insistence by legal experts that the crime was obvious and public about Jan. 6. However, four months have gone by without word of an interview Trump, let alone a complaint, on criminal incitement. Why?
The reasons could be deadline that shows a chaotic and conflicting accounts:
►Trump finished his speech in 1:10 p.m.
►The first rioter entered the U.S. Capitol in 2:12.
►According to CNN, Trump had a heated contact approximately 2:20 with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who told him of the violation.
►About 2:26, Trump wrongly called Utah Sen. Mike Lee rather than Alabama Sen. Tommy Tuberville. After Lee gave Tuberville his phone, he reportedly said that Trump did not seem to realize the area of the rioting from the construction.
►In 2:38, Trump called for his followers to be peaceful and to encourage police.
The biggest threat for Democrats is this litigation (and Swalwell’s litigation ) provides Trump the greatest vindication in court. These instances are brought on by the lower civil standard of proof. If Trump managed to overcome these instances under the much easier standard, it would substantially undermine claims of a criminal offense.
The multiplicity of these lawsuits can increase the changes of getting a sympathetic trial judge. Nonetheless, these lawsuits are inherently flawed and represent serious threats to free speech. On the existing proof, they will probably fail on charm, even though they survive the trial amount litigation.  In addition, the familiarity of these filings may permit the Trump team to efficiently select the weakest event to try these problems by slowing walking the other instances.
Not having comment on the danger of free speech in these types of lawsuits is itself frightening. While I condemned Trump’s speech (although it was being given) and his irresponsible role within this riot, these views should not blind us into the consequences of those activities. If courts were to embrace the debates in such lawsuits, we’d gut protections for free speech at the United States.
The complaints make sweeping and, in my opinion, reckless promises of liability for political term. In the end, free speech should be vindicated but these lawsuits also may bring a kind of legal vindication for Trump before the 2024 election.
Here’s the criticism: Blassingame v. Trump