SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Right-wing insurrectionists attack police and storm the U.S. Capitol building in Washington, D.C. on January 6, 2021. (Photo: Lev Radin/Pacific Press/LightRocket via Getty Images)
(Photo: Lev Radin/Pacific Press/LightRocket via Getty Images)
US Judge Says Jan. 6 Panel Report Suggests Trump Urged Supporters to Break Law
"Trump's instruction in his speech to, for instance, 'fight like hell'... could signal to protesters that entering the Capitol and stopping the certification would be unlawful."
Dec 28, 2022
A federal judge on Wednesday rejected a January 6 defendant's claim that then-President Donald Trump's exhortation to march to the U.S. Capitol on the day of the deadly right-wing attack should shield the alleged insurrectionist from legal responsibility for his actions.
Alex Sheppard, 22, of Ohio is charged with six federal offenses in connection with the Capitol attack. He has pleaded not guilty to all of them, arguing that he believed Trump ordered patriots to enter the Capitol and "fight like hell" to "stop the steal."
Shortly before right-wing rioters invaded the Capitol last year and briefly delayed the certification of the 2020 presidential election results, Trump delivered a rally speech reiterating his "Big Lie" that the contest was stolen from him.
U.S. District Court Judge John Bates, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, wrote Wednesday that "Trump's words only encourage those at the rally to march to the Capitol—nothing more—and do not address legality at all."
"Although his express words only mention walking down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol, one might conclude that the context implies that he was urging protestors to do something more, perhaps to enter the Capitol building and stop the [election's] certification," he added. "But even if so, there is simply no indication that Trump informed the protestors that doing so would be legal."
Citing the final report from the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, Bates elaborated in a footnote that "Trump's instruction in his speech to, for instance, 'fight like hell'... could signal to protesters that entering the Capitol and stopping the certification would be unlawful."
Bates added that "the conclusions reached here—that even if protesters believed they were following orders, they were not misled about the legality of their actions and thus fall outside the scope of any public authority defense—is consistent with the select committee's findings."
Politico's Kyle Cheney wrote:
Bates' ruling is the first to reckon with the select committee's finding that Trump violated at least four federal laws in his crusade to subvert the 2020 election. And it is an early window into how the judiciary might interpret the unusual findings of criminal violations by a congressional committee.
A slew of January 6 defendants have sought to argue that Trump somehow blessed their decision to breach the Capitol, saying they were misled into believing their actions were legal. Though Trump has no power to permit others to violate federal laws, many in the crowd might have viewed his instructions as legal permission, they've argued.
"Those defenses have largely failed in courts," Cheney added, "and the one jury to hear that claim—in the case of Dustin Thompson—rejected it, finding Thompson guilty on all charges."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
A federal judge on Wednesday rejected a January 6 defendant's claim that then-President Donald Trump's exhortation to march to the U.S. Capitol on the day of the deadly right-wing attack should shield the alleged insurrectionist from legal responsibility for his actions.
Alex Sheppard, 22, of Ohio is charged with six federal offenses in connection with the Capitol attack. He has pleaded not guilty to all of them, arguing that he believed Trump ordered patriots to enter the Capitol and "fight like hell" to "stop the steal."
Shortly before right-wing rioters invaded the Capitol last year and briefly delayed the certification of the 2020 presidential election results, Trump delivered a rally speech reiterating his "Big Lie" that the contest was stolen from him.
U.S. District Court Judge John Bates, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, wrote Wednesday that "Trump's words only encourage those at the rally to march to the Capitol—nothing more—and do not address legality at all."
"Although his express words only mention walking down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol, one might conclude that the context implies that he was urging protestors to do something more, perhaps to enter the Capitol building and stop the [election's] certification," he added. "But even if so, there is simply no indication that Trump informed the protestors that doing so would be legal."
Citing the final report from the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, Bates elaborated in a footnote that "Trump's instruction in his speech to, for instance, 'fight like hell'... could signal to protesters that entering the Capitol and stopping the certification would be unlawful."
Bates added that "the conclusions reached here—that even if protesters believed they were following orders, they were not misled about the legality of their actions and thus fall outside the scope of any public authority defense—is consistent with the select committee's findings."
Politico's Kyle Cheney wrote:
Bates' ruling is the first to reckon with the select committee's finding that Trump violated at least four federal laws in his crusade to subvert the 2020 election. And it is an early window into how the judiciary might interpret the unusual findings of criminal violations by a congressional committee.
A slew of January 6 defendants have sought to argue that Trump somehow blessed their decision to breach the Capitol, saying they were misled into believing their actions were legal. Though Trump has no power to permit others to violate federal laws, many in the crowd might have viewed his instructions as legal permission, they've argued.
"Those defenses have largely failed in courts," Cheney added, "and the one jury to hear that claim—in the case of Dustin Thompson—rejected it, finding Thompson guilty on all charges."
Related Articles Around the Web
A federal judge on Wednesday rejected a January 6 defendant's claim that then-President Donald Trump's exhortation to march to the U.S. Capitol on the day of the deadly right-wing attack should shield the alleged insurrectionist from legal responsibility for his actions.
Alex Sheppard, 22, of Ohio is charged with six federal offenses in connection with the Capitol attack. He has pleaded not guilty to all of them, arguing that he believed Trump ordered patriots to enter the Capitol and "fight like hell" to "stop the steal."
Shortly before right-wing rioters invaded the Capitol last year and briefly delayed the certification of the 2020 presidential election results, Trump delivered a rally speech reiterating his "Big Lie" that the contest was stolen from him.
U.S. District Court Judge John Bates, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, wrote Wednesday that "Trump's words only encourage those at the rally to march to the Capitol—nothing more—and do not address legality at all."
"Although his express words only mention walking down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol, one might conclude that the context implies that he was urging protestors to do something more, perhaps to enter the Capitol building and stop the [election's] certification," he added. "But even if so, there is simply no indication that Trump informed the protestors that doing so would be legal."
Citing the final report from the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, Bates elaborated in a footnote that "Trump's instruction in his speech to, for instance, 'fight like hell'... could signal to protesters that entering the Capitol and stopping the certification would be unlawful."
Bates added that "the conclusions reached here—that even if protesters believed they were following orders, they were not misled about the legality of their actions and thus fall outside the scope of any public authority defense—is consistent with the select committee's findings."
Politico's Kyle Cheney wrote:
Bates' ruling is the first to reckon with the select committee's finding that Trump violated at least four federal laws in his crusade to subvert the 2020 election. And it is an early window into how the judiciary might interpret the unusual findings of criminal violations by a congressional committee.
A slew of January 6 defendants have sought to argue that Trump somehow blessed their decision to breach the Capitol, saying they were misled into believing their actions were legal. Though Trump has no power to permit others to violate federal laws, many in the crowd might have viewed his instructions as legal permission, they've argued.
"Those defenses have largely failed in courts," Cheney added, "and the one jury to hear that claim—in the case of Dustin Thompson—rejected it, finding Thompson guilty on all charges."
Related Articles Around the Web
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.