There is far more to this case than simple speech making!

Federal appeals court considers Trump’s plea to grant him immunity from Capitol riot lawsuits

Donald Trump’s legal team will be back in court Wednesday morning to try to convince a federal appeals court that the former president should be immune from liability in three separate lawsuits stemming from the January 6, 2021, insurrection.

A federal judge in Washington, DC, ruled in February that the lawsuits can move forward, denying Trump’s claim that his conduct was shielded by the privileges of the presidency, and now Trump’s attorneys are appealing that decision.

“The underlying question here is simple: is a president immune from civil liability when he or she gives a speech on a matter of public concern? The answer is undoubtedly, yes,” Trump’s attorneys said in court papers. They argued Trump’s remarks at the center of the case – the speech he gave to supporters at the Ellipse prior to the attack – is protected by his “ironclad presidential immunity as it relates to speechmaking.”

The three lawsuits were filed last year by Democratic members of the House and police officers who defended the US Capitol on January 6, with the suits claiming Trump prompted his supporters to attack.

In his ruling earlier this year, DC District Court Judge Amit Mehta wrote that Trump’s statements to his supporters before the riot “is the essence of civil conspiracy” because Trump spoke about himself and rallygoers working “towards a common goal” of fighting and walking down Pennsylvania Ave.

“To deny a President immunity from civil damages is no small step. The court well understands the gravity of its decision. But the alleged facts of this case are without precedent,” Mehta wrote.

Trump’s attorneys are asking the appeals court to reverse Mehta’s ruling and send the case back to him with instructions to dismiss the former president as a defendant.

Earlier this year, Mehta dismissed several close allies to Trump from the suits, including his former attorney Rudy Giuliani and his son Donald Trump Jr.

Two of the lawsuits were brought by Democratic House members, while a third was filed by Capitol Police officers. The three lawsuits have been consolidated into one for the purposes of the appeal.

The lawmakers allege that they were threatened by Trump and others as part of a conspiracy to stop the congressional session that would certify the 2020 presidential election on January 6, 2021, according to the complaints. They argue that Trump should bear responsibility for directing the assaults. The police officers said in their suit that they were hit by chemical sprays and objects the crowd threw at them, like water bottles and signs, because Trump inspired the crowd.

Attorneys for the lawmakers and officers argued in court papers that presidential immunity has clear limits and that “because Trump’s actions, as set forth in the complaints, subverted our constitutional design – and cannot be reconciled with any plausible understanding of the presidency and its powers – Trump lacks any valid claim to immunity here.”

“Immunizing Trump’s conduct would weaken the presidency by diminishing the American public’s ability to choose who occupies that office. Thus, immunizing Trump’s conduct would warp the very constitutional structure that immunity exists to preserve,” they told the court in a brief filed in October.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/07/politics/trump-immunity-lawsuits-appeal-january-6/index.html