FILE – Republican presidential candidate former President Donald Trump pumps his fist as he departs after speaking during the Conservative Political Action Conference, CPAC 2024, in Oxon Hill, Md., Feb. 24, 2024. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon, File)
As the floodgates open on civil liability over the violence of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol Complex, former president Donald Trump intends to launch a full court effort to close them.
Early Friday morning, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia allowed three personal injury lawsuits—and various other consolidation cases—against the 45th president to proceed.
Late Friday, attorneys representing Trump in those cases filed a notice saying they intend to file a motion to pause the proceedings pending a resolution of his entire criminal conspiracy case over the Jan. 6 riots.
That notice, mentioned in a joint status report – a filing detailing discussions between the various parties in legal controversy and signed off on by all sides’ lawyers – in the Thompson v. Trump case, was originally reported on by New York Times journalist Alan Feuer.
“President Trump intends to file a Motion to Stay all proceedings in this matter no later than 14 days from today,” the notice reads.
According to the filing, the 45th president will argue that he is entitled to pause all of the Jan. 6-related lawsuits against him until his criminal case in the federal district is over due to the recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court to hear Trump’s arguments on criminal immunity.
“The issue of presidential immunity is a key issue at this stage in these proceedings,” the filing reads. “Indeed, this case cannot move forward with respect to President Trump until this issue is resolved.”
The various plaintiffs in the case recently filed a series of proposed stipulations – a collection of statements of fact that they are asking the defense to accept as true for the purpose of trial.
Trump says he cannot stipulate anything in the civil cases until his criminal case is over because it could harm his criminal defense.
“Defendant should not be required to stipulate to facts that would essentially give a roadmap of the Defendant’s defense strategy and positions to the prosecution in the concurrent criminal litigation as the same operative facts are at issue in the criminal case as here,” the filing reads.
The plaintiffs, however, insist most of their proposed stipulations “were drawn from publicly-available information that would likely require little or no discovery for their verification.”
Trump contests that characterization – arguing “this is an inaccurate portrait” and that even if it were accurate, the source of the information would “not render the proposed stipulation an uncontestable fact.”
“Nor does this change the calculus of avoiding providing a roadmap to the prosecution by conceding contesting facts for convenience of the plaintiffs,” the defense section of the report argues. “Indeed, even conceding or disputing which facts may be material to the determination of the immunity question is precisely the roadmap the Special Counsel would find useful.”
Even addressing the proposed stipulations, the joint status report argues, “would risk hamstringing President Trump’s ability to prepare his criminal defense” and to “properly contest disputed factual allegations in those proceedings.”
“Engaging in any effort to identify and agree to facts in this civil litigation while the current criminal matters are pending would expose the defense theory to the prosecution in advance of the criminal trial and prejudice President Trump’s defense in that case,” the defense section continues.
Trump previously missed a deadline to file a petition for a writ of certiorari over the discrete issue of civil immunity for the Jan. 6-related lawsuits. The D.C. Court of Appeals previously paused the three lawsuits to allow Trump time to persuade the nine justices to take up his arguments on civil immunity. But, in the end, those arguments were never made: that deadline came and went in mid-February without a petition being filed.
On Dec. 1, 2023, a three-judge ruled against Trump in a case brought by Capitol Police Officers James Blassingame and Sidney Hemby, as well as lawmakers including Reps. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., and Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., the former chairman of the now defunct House Select Committee to Investigate the Jan. 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol.
Brandi Buchman contributed to this report.
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
