Rep. Eric Swalwell is suing Trump and his disgusting son for inciting MAGA mob

(Photo by Justin Sullivan / Getty Images)

The Senate may not have condemned Donald Trump, but House impeachment head Eric Swalwell is not giving up yet. Today, the California Congressman filed a civil lawsuit against the former president, his unfortunate eldest son, his leaky pro bono attorney, and Alabama Rep. Mo Brooks, all of whom turned to the MAGA mob before he left the Capitol on Jan. 6 stormed.

“Today I filed a civil lawsuit against Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Rudolph Giuliani, and Representative Mo Brooks for instigating an attack on the Capitol that terrorized lawmakers and prevented us from validating our work of the voices of the American people, “he tweeted.

As a direct and predictable consequence of the defendants ‘false and brand-new allegations of fraud and theft, and in direct response to defendants’ explicit demands for violence at the rally, a violent mob attacked the U.S. Capitol and stopped counting the electoral college by congressional votes . The defendants gathered, set fire to and incited the mob and, as such, are fully responsible for the injuries and destruction that followed. “

It remains to be seen whether a civil lawsuit in the US District Court will be an effective remedy. After elaborating on the defendants’ conduct prior to the uprising, Swalwell claims they conspired to violate his civil rights by interfering with his official duty to confirm the results of the presidential election.

This reflects the claims made by Rep. Bennie Thompson, who claimed a Violation of 42 USC Section 1985, better known as the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, a reconstruction-era law aimed at mobs who would disrupt federal officials in their work. ONIndeed, Swalwell has requested that his complaint relating to the Rep. Thompson case be considered and included in Judge Amit Mehta’s record. (Of course, that has nothing to do with it Mehta’s record hostility to Trump’s savage claims of executive immunity.)

The nine counts range from the quotidian (negligence, deliberate infliction of emotional stress, incitement) to the interesting (the KKK assertion) to the HUH WHAT ??? (Assisting and assisting a common law attack because the presence of the mob, although never physically assaulted, “caused the plaintiff to fear imminent physical harm”). It should be an intriguing case of first change, with Trump et al. safe to claim that they were simply exercising their right to freedom of expression and had no idea the mob was going to become recalcitrant, despite Trump’s recommendation to acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller on Jan. 5 that 10,000 National Guard troops would be needed to to control the crowd.

The former president commented on his spokesman, Jason Miller, who described Swalwell as “a life without credibility” to the Washington Post and re-launched discredited allegations that the California congressman was a “compromised” Chinese asset.

“I make no apologies at all for fighting for accurate and honest elections,” Brooks said in comments on Newsweek. “Overall, I carry the bizarre and malicious complaint of the communist sympathizer Swalwell like a token of courage.

I’m still waiting for Don Jr. and Rudy to hold their heads up. Let’s say Rudy said, “Ha, take a number, mate,” and Deej tries to hold his jaw long enough to form semi-coherent sentences.

Swalwell is represented by Joseph Caleb and Philip Andonian from Caleb Andonian PLLC, Matthew Kaiser and Sarah Fink from KaiserDillon PLLC, and Barry Coburn and Marc Eisenstein from Coburn and Greenbaum PLLC.

Swalwell v. Trump [Docket via Court Listener]

Elizabeth Dye lives in Baltimore, where she writes on law and politics.

Comments are closed.