Judge's brutal ruling on Trump's effort to toss lawsuits accusing him of Jan. 6 conspiracy

[j brown's body]

"...U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta said the evidence suggests Trump assembled the crowd and then instructed the rally goers to march on the Capitol, despite knowing that the crowd likely included violent and destructive elements. And Trump’s Twitter attack amid the violence on then-Vice President Mike Pence, who was presiding over the counting of electoral votes that would finalize President Joe Biden’s victory, suggests a “tacit agreement” with those who stormed the Capitol and sent Pence and lawmakers fleeing for safety, Mehta wrote.

..“[T]he President’s January 6 Rally Speech can reasonably be viewed as a call for collective action,” Mehta wrote. “The President’s regular use of the word ‘we’ is notable. To name just a few examples: ‘We will not take it anymore’; ‘We will stop the steal’; ‘We will never give up’; ‘We will never concede’; ‘We will not take it anymore’; ‘All Mike Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify, and we become president.’”

“Importantly, it was the President and his campaign’s idea to send thousands to the Capitol while the Certification was underway. It was not a planned part of the rally. In fact, the permit expressly stated that it did ‘not authorize a march from the Ellipse,’” Mehta wrote. “From these alleged facts, it is at least plausible to infer that, when he called on rally-goers to march to the Capitol, the President did so with the goal of disrupting lawmakers’ efforts to certify the Electoral College votes,” he continued. “The Oath Keepers, the Proud Boys, and others who forced their way into the Capitol building plainly shared in that unlawful goal.”

Link

The Proud Boys, you may recall, is the group Trump told to "stand by."

 

[Ginger Ale]

No wonder his fan base is jumping ship. I wonder who the new messiah will be? DeSantan?

 

[TomFitz]

You won’t see any of them around here. Although a few of them are still diddling each other over the Sussman thing.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

"...U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta said the evidence suggests Trump assembled the crowd and then instructed the rally goers to march on the Capitol, despite knowing that the crowd likely included violent and destructive elements. And Trump’s Twitter attack amid the violence on then-Vice President Mike Pence, who was presiding over the counting of electoral votes that would finalize President Joe Biden’s victory, suggests a “tacit agreement” with those who stormed the Capitol and sent Pence and lawmakers fleeing for safety, Mehta wrote.

..“[T]he President’s January 6 Rally Speech can reasonably be viewed as a call for collective action,” Mehta wrote. “The President’s regular use of the word ‘we’ is notable. To name just a few examples: ‘We will not take it anymore’; ‘We will stop the steal’; ‘We will never give up’; ‘We will never concede’; ‘We will not take it anymore’; ‘All Mike Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify, and we become president.’”

“Importantly, it was the President and his campaign’s idea to send thousands to the Capitol while the Certification was underway. It was not a planned part of the rally. In fact, the permit expressly stated that it did ‘not authorize a march from the Ellipse,’” Mehta wrote. “From these alleged facts, it is at least plausible to infer that, when he called on rally-goers to march to the Capitol, the President did so with the goal of disrupting lawmakers’ efforts to certify the Electoral College votes,” he continued. “The Oath Keepers, the Proud Boys, and others who forced their way into the Capitol building plainly shared in that unlawful goal.”

Link

The Proud Boys, you may recall, is the group Trump told to "stand by."

Sounds good, but I'll believe it when it actually happens.

 

[j brown's body]

If democracy survives Trump and the Republicans, we can thank the judges. They have been on to Trump for quite some time.

 

[Hamish Howl]

This should be good for some mindless rage on the part of the remaining MAGA folks.

 

[Rawley]

"...U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta said the evidence suggests Trump assembled the crowd and then instructed the rally goers to march on the Capitol, despite knowing that the crowd likely included violent and destructive elements. And Trump’s Twitter attack amid the violence on then-Vice President Mike Pence, who was presiding over the counting of electoral votes that would finalize President Joe Biden’s victory, suggests a “tacit agreement” with those who stormed the Capitol and sent Pence and lawmakers fleeing for safety, Mehta wrote.

..“[T]he President’s January 6 Rally Speech can reasonably be viewed as a call for collective action,” Mehta wrote. “The President’s regular use of the word ‘we’ is notable. To name just a few examples: ‘We will not take it anymore’; ‘We will stop the steal’; ‘We will never give up’; ‘We will never concede’; ‘We will not take it anymore’; ‘All Mike Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify, and we become president.’”

“Importantly, it was the President and his campaign’s idea to send thousands to the Capitol while the Certification was underway. It was not a planned part of the rally. In fact, the permit expressly stated that it did ‘not authorize a march from the Ellipse,’” Mehta wrote. “From these alleged facts, it is at least plausible to infer that, when he called on rally-goers to march to the Capitol, the President did so with the goal of disrupting lawmakers’ efforts to certify the Electoral College votes,” he continued. “The Oath Keepers, the Proud Boys, and others who forced their way into the Capitol building plainly shared in that unlawful goal.”

Link

The Proud Boys, you may recall, is the group Trump told to "stand by."

112 pages. LOL Says it all.

 

[Slartibartfast]

112 pages. LOL Says it all.

That is one of the more odd dismissals I have seen in this forum. What is special about the number 112?

 

[Rawley]

That is one of the more odd dismissals I have seen in this forum. What is special about the number 112?

You don't need a 112 pages to say "motion denied" This was a political screed.

 

[Slartibartfast]

You don't need a 112 pages to say "motion denied" This was a political screed.

Or… given the sensitivity of the topic, the judge covered their bases

 

[RAMOSS]

112 pages. LOL Says it all.

Well, it might not cover everything, but it certainly covers most.

 

[Peacenik]

"...U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta said the evidence suggests Trump assembled the crowd and then instructed the rally goers to march on the Capitol, despite knowing that the crowd likely included violent and destructive elements. And Trump’s Twitter attack amid the violence on then-Vice President Mike Pence, who was presiding over the counting of electoral votes that would finalize President Joe Biden’s victory, suggests a “tacit agreement” with those who stormed the Capitol and sent Pence and lawmakers fleeing for safety, Mehta wrote.

..“[T]he President’s January 6 Rally Speech can reasonably be viewed as a call for collective action,” Mehta wrote. “The President’s regular use of the word ‘we’ is notable. To name just a few examples: ‘We will not take it anymore’; ‘We will stop the steal’; ‘We will never give up’; ‘We will never concede’; ‘We will not take it anymore’; ‘All Mike Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify, and we become president.’”

“Importantly, it was the President and his campaign’s idea to send thousands to the Capitol while the Certification was underway. It was not a planned part of the rally. In fact, the permit expressly stated that it did ‘not authorize a march from the Ellipse,’” Mehta wrote. “From these alleged facts, it is at least plausible to infer that, when he called on rally-goers to march to the Capitol, the President did so with the goal of disrupting lawmakers’ efforts to certify the Electoral College votes,” he continued. “The Oath Keepers, the Proud Boys, and others who forced their way into the Capitol building plainly shared in that unlawful goal.”

Link

The Proud Boys, you may recall, is the group Trump told to "stand by."

"The Proud Boys, you may recall, is the group Trump told to "stand by." "

He didn't tell anybody to stand by on January 6th, 2021. He gathered them together in that place on that day and said it was going to be wild. He told them if they don't fight like hell they would not even have a country any more. And that is what they did, and they definitely felt like they were doing it at the President's direction, and they thought they were saving America.

And it was a tragic lie. America was fine without them attacking the Capital. The only danger America was in that day was from them.

Of course Trump should be held liable for what he did.

 

[beefheart]

Where is the cult tonite?

Oh, they are moistening at the site of Canadians being funded by American right wingers and being used for a stupid protest.

 

[Schism]

Is this a criminal trial or a lawsuit mock public media trial?

 

[MTAtech]

What’s groundbreaking in this ruling is that the court ruled that the president isn’t shielded, as other presidents have been shielded in the past. This means the court believed that Trump’s behavior is so outrageous that he can’t hide behind his former office.

 

[Mongidig]

Trumpism is coming to an abrupt end. Even the cultists at my work are jumping ship. This is mostly because he said to get the vaccine. Trump reminds me of the rise and fall of Omicron.

 

[Mongidig]

You know Trump is in trouble when that one deplorable who usually shows up no later than post two or three in threads like this is no where to be found.

 

[Atomic Kid]

You don't need a 112 pages to say "motion denied" This was a political screed.

Just because you would struggle to get beyond just one or two doesn't mean that others can't.

 

[CaughtInThe]

You don't need a 112 pages to say "motion denied" This was a political screed.

you're having a rough week.

 

[j brown's body]

What’s groundbreaking in this ruling is that the court ruled that the president isn’t shielded, as other presidents have been shielded in the past. This means the court believed that Trump’s behavior is so outrageous that he can’t hide behind his former office.

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

The judge gets it.

 

[NuffSaid]

Just because you would struggle to get beyond just one or two doesn't mean that others can't.

He needs a map with sharpie drawn on it

 

[The AntiDonald]

You don't need a 112 pages to say "motion denied" This was a political screed.

A very welcome and necessary political screed. I say bravo to this judge. We know that most Trump fans will disregard it and call witch hunt. However, there are some that will take the time to read and learn what an ass Trump is.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You don't need a 112 pages to say "motion denied" This was a political screed.

Maybe not, but maybe so.

See District Judges have to issue rulings that cover legal standing, the background of the facts, the claims presented by each side their legal justifications, and then the Judges own ruling on the case with regards to legal reasoning, legal precedent, and how the presented cases stand up to review. Typically this goes way beyond the "bumper sticker" mentality of some and a simple "motion denied".

Why is this so?

Because in high profile cases the Judge knows that the decision will be appealed, and yes any case where the Ex-President is a defendant is a "high profile case". As such the Judge is laying out the facts, precedent, and reasoning in the case not for the public that will only read snippets of the decision through their preferred news source - most not reading anything. The Judge is writing for the Circuit Court of Appeals to tell them "this is why my decision was the correct one in this case" to reduce the possibility of being overturned. Using a bumper sticker "motion denied" leaves way to much to in question to be picked apart by the appealing lawyers, because - well - you know how lawyers are.

So 112 pages to pull the teeth of lawyers for an appeal? For this type of case that doesn't seem unreasonable.

WW

 

[LouC]

You don't need a 112 pages to say "motion denied" This was a political screed.

Thank you for your totally inexpert and decidedly partisan biased opinion.

Just wondering, was it also "political screed" on the parts where the judge ALLOWED the motions for dismissal within the three suits?

 

[TomFitz]

You know Trump is in trouble when that one deplorable who usually shows up no later than post two or three in threads like this is no where to be found.

I wonder if a couple of them got banned. I haven’t seen some of these guys at all, lately.