…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.

Trump and Meadows are joined at the hip not as Jan 6 coup plotters

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 Bennie Thompson (D-Miss., who has since withdrawn to lead the Jan. 6 committee) and 11 other House Dems, targets Trump, Giuliani and the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers.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

ATTENTION READERS
Due to the nature of independent content, VT cannot guarantee content validity.
We ask you to Read Our Content Policy so a clear comprehension of VT's independent non-censored media is understood and given its proper place in the world of news, opinion and media.

All content is owned by author exclusively. Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, other authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners or technicians. Some content may be satirical in nature. All images within are full responsibility of author and NOT VT.

About VT - Read Full Policy Notice - Comment Policy