WASHINGTON (Reuters)-The United States Department of Justice has moved to protect President Donald Trump from civil proceedings powered by police and democratic parliamentarians seeking to blame him for the violence that occurred during the attack on the US capitol on January 6, 2021 by his supporters.
In judicial documents presented on Thursday night, the department’s lawyers asked the US district judge Amit Mehta to replace Trump as a defendant in the US government’s dispute in certain claims on the grounds that he was “acting within the scope of his position or employment” before and during the riot.
Trump supporters attacked Capitol in a failed attempt to prevent Congress from certifying Democrat Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential elections after Trump makes false allegations of widespread electoral fraud.
The department cited a federal law that determines that the US government is the defendant when federal officials are sued on their official duties under state laws. Department action applies only to allegations made under local laws in Washington, DC
The new Justice Department’s new stance contradicts the position adopted during the Biden government, when prosecutors argued in a criminal case against Trump – already filed – that many of their rioting actions were not related to their official responsibilities.
Since returning to the presidency in January, Trump has been in control over the Justice Department, and his new high officials require government lawyers to be faithful to his agenda.
Continues after advertising
Democratic police and parliamentarians filed eight civil proceedings against Trump – now consolidated and under Mehta’s responsibility – seeking monetary compensation, arguing that he addressed and helped attacks on the police when he made an incendiary speech to supporters shortly before they arrived at the Capitol.
Trump denies the allegations in the dispute and asked the judge to consider him immune based on the fact that he was acting on his formal role as president.
Lawyers of several of the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to requests for comments.
