…from Politico
[ Editor’s Note: Finally we are seeing some consolidation hopefully on the Trump Insurrection lawsuits which can speed up the process.
I had been wondering if the Courts would just sit back and watch the Trumper lawyers bury them under in years work if litigation with the Jan6 victims interests, and the country’d interests pushed to the back of the line.
I suspect the judges are also thinking way ahead, meaning for future insurrection attempts, to where they want to lay down case law precedent to be used to process/reject future political legal obstruction litigation.
We also need to have some grifter lawyers’ scalps hanging from the Capitol totem pole as a visible reminder of what the penalties for attacking the foundations of our democracy are.
The lines regarding what is not allowed have to be clear to all, including those pondering the funding of future insurrections. Things like this could be woven into the legislation the Jan 6 committtee is pledge to create at the end of the hearings when all has been said and heard… Jim W. Dean ]
Jim's Editor’s Notes are solely crowdfunded via PayPal
Jim's work includes research, field trips, Heritage TV Legacy archiving & more. Thanks for helping. Click to donate >>
First published … December 16, 2021
Here’s the latest
Mark your calendar: A federal judge has set Jan. 10 to hear oral arguments in three lawsuits by congressional Democrats and Capitol Police officers against Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani and others they accuse of conspiring to overturn the 2020 election.
The lawsuits: One suit, filed by Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), is aimed at Trump, Giuliani, Donald Trump Jr. and Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.).
Another, filed by Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss., who has since withdrawn to lead the Jan. 6 committee) and 11 other House Dems, targets Trump, Giuliani and the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers. A third, filed by two Capitol Police officers, is aimed squarely at Trump.
The hearing will be held before Judge Amit Mehta, who has made clear he views Trump’s sustained disinformation campaign as a driver of the attack on the Capitol.
The significance: Just days after the anniversary of the insurrection, the oral arguments will bring lawyers for Trump face to face with parties who hold him singularly responsible for stoking the violence on Jan. 6.
It may also force a reckoning for Brooks, who has argued his remarks at a Jan. 6 rally were part of his official business — and therefore not subject to a lawsuit. House lawyers have rejected that claim.
— Kyle Cheney
Jim W. Dean is VT Editor Emeritus. He was an active editor on VT from 2010-2022. He was involved in operations, development, and writing, plus an active schedule of TV and radio interviews. He now writes and posts periodically for VT.
ATTENTION READERS
We See The World From All Sides and Want YOU To Be Fully InformedIn fact, intentional disinformation is a disgraceful scourge in media today. So to assuage any possible errant incorrect information posted herein, we strongly encourage you to seek corroboration from other non-VT sources before forming an educated opinion.
About VT - Policies & Disclosures - Comment Policy
