Did Eric Swalwell offer vindication for Donald Trump with his lawsuit? By Jonathan Turley

[mystery-ak]

Did Eric Swalwell offer vindication for Donald Trump with his lawsuit?
By Jonathan Turley, opinion contributor — 03/06/21 10:00 AM EST

French philosopher Voltaire said he had only one prayer in life — “O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous” — and that it was uniformly granted by God. The answer to Donald Trump’s prayers may be Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.). It is not because of Swalwell’s relationship with a Chinese agent or the bizarre defenses of him, including one Democrat insisting he deserved the Medal of Honor. It is because Swalwell’s lawsuit against the former president could offer Trump the ultimate vindication over his role in the riot at the Capitol.

Swalwell’s complaint against Trump — along with son Donald Trump Jr., Rudy Giuliani, and Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) — alleges nine counts for relief, from negligent emotional distress suffered by Swalwell to negligence in the “incitement to riot.” One might think this would be a lead-pipe cinch of a case. After all, an array of legal experts has insisted for months that this was clear criminal incitement, not an exercise of free speech. As a civil lawsuit, it should be even easier to win, since the standard of proof is lower for civil cases.

Yet for more than four years, many of these same experts claimed a long list of “clear” crimes by Trump that were never prosecuted or used as a basis for impeachment. Likewise, despite similar claims of criminal incitement, roughly three months have passed without a criminal charge against Trump. District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine insisted weeks ago that Trump’s alleged crime would be investigated.


But any such prosecution likely would collapse at trial or on appeal, and people like Racine are not eager to prove Trump’s case by reversal. Enter Swalwell, who has long exhibited a willingness to rush in where wiser Democrats fear to tread, with what may be his costliest misstep yet.

First, his lawsuit will force a court to determine if the defendants’ speeches were protected political speech. As if to ensure failure, Swalwell picked the very tort — emotional distress — that was rejected by the Supreme Court, which in 2011 ruled in favor of Westboro Baptist Church, an infamous group of zealots who engaged in homophobic protests at the funerals of slain American troops.

more
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/541890-did-eric-swalwell-offer-vindication-for-donald-trump-with-his-lawsuit

[Cyber Liberty]

Poor Jonathon.  He still thinks courts behave in a predictable way.

[PeteS in CA]

IMO, Swillwell may have made a big mistake by going to court, where he will have to present evidence of having been damaged and evidence that Trump, et al, caused the damage in a tortious way. He also may have opened a can of worms containing Pelosi and other Dems' communications with Capitol Police, National Guard units, and the DoD.

[BassWrangler]

IMO, Swillwell may have made a big mistake by going to court, where he will have to present evidence of having been damaged and evidence that Trump, et al, caused the damage in a tortious way. He also may have opened a can of worms containing Pelosi and other Dems' communications with Capitol Police, National Guard units, and the DoD.

If he gets an activist judge, it doesn't matter what the merits of the case are.

[Hoodat]

The only thing that Swalwell offers is the tacit admission that he bought or cheated his way through law school.

[BassWrangler]

The only thing that Swalwell offers is the tacit admission that he bought or cheated his way through law school.

Possibly farted his way through it.