Parliamentary police officers sued Trump and militants on January 6 for conspiracy, terrorism allegations


Seven police officers of the United States Capitol Police bring the action Former President Donald Trump, his longtime adviser Roger Stone, and members of the far-right militant group use violence on January 6 to prevent Congress from proving the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. Claims to have colluded.

A proceeding filed in the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia on Thursday alleges that Trump and other defendants colluded with each other through the use of coercion, intimidation, and intimidation that culminated in an attack on the Houses of Parliament. doing.

Jason Delosh, an 18-year veteran of the Parliamentary Police and a veteran of the Navy, said the civil proceedings were not about winning a financial settlement. Rather, he said the proceedings were aimed at keeping a record of what happened on January 6 and preventing history from repeating.

“I don’t want this to happen again,” DeRoche said.

He said Trump and the other defendants wanted to be held accountable for what they did.

January 6th Hearing: At the hearing, officers recall a brutal riot to curb the mob, the “desperate struggle.”

Trump supporters clash with police and security forces as people attack the US Capitol on January 6.

Trump supporters clash with police and security forces as people attack the US Capitol on January 6.

Six other veteran Capitol police officers have joined Delosh in the proceedings, each working in this department for 13 to 35 years. The complaint details the January 6 incident, explaining that police officers believed they were assaulted, sprayed with bear spray, shed tear gas, and threatened their lives.

De Roche started the shift at 7am that day. Hours later, he helped barricade the Capitol with a bike rack against attacking Trump supporters, the proceedings say. During the shift, which lasted until 11:30 pm, he was assaulted and attacked with bear sprays, pepper sprays and fire extinguishers. The lawsuit said he had swollen eyes, injured arms, and was mentally injured.

“These police officers endanger lives and of all citizens against the government of their choice,” said Edward Casper, a senior adviser to the Lawyer’s Commission for Civil Rights under the Law, an advocacy group representing police officers. He was brutally attacked to defend his rights. ” “If they didn’t do what they did that day-if they didn’t have the courage to stand up-we don’t know we would be living in democracy today.”

The proceedings allege that the defendant violated the federal Ku Klux Klan Act. This is a reconstruction-era law that allows individuals to sue if injured by a conspiracy that “prevents a person from accepting or retaining a job by force, intimidation, or intimidation.” Trust, or a place of trust under the United States. “

According to Casper, the law did not fit well into the circumstances of the case.

“The attack involved using force, intimidation, and intimidation to help Congress prove the outcome of the election and prevent police officers in the Capitol from being injured in performing their duties,” he said. rice field.

Trump’s lawyer and several other defendants did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Enrique Tarrio, chairman of Proud Boys, another defendant in the proceedings, responded but did not comment on the allegations.

January 6 Suicide: Two additional DC officers killed in suicide in response to US Capitol rebellion

The proceedings allege that the plot expanded throughout 2020 as far-right influencers, including Trump and Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, questioned the completeness of the presidential election.

Combining events across the country, including a hijacking by armed protesters of the Michigan State Capitol on April 30, 2020, a violent attack by Proud Boys, and a fierce television appearance by Oath Keepers leader Stewart Rhodes: Insist on. They were all part of a national conspiracy aimed at keeping Trump in power after Trump lost the election.

The proceedings allege that the post-election conspiracy increased enthusiastically as the providers of the “Stop The Steal” conspiracy theory worked to disinformation about fraudulent elections. The complaint argues that attacks and intimidation on electoral workers should be implicitly linked to propaganda spread by Trump and others.

Trump supporters clash with police and security forces when they push a barricade to attack the Capitol in Washington on January 6.

Trump supporters clash with police and security forces when they push a barricade to attack the Washington Capitol on January 6.

Erwin Kemerinsky, Dean of the University of California, Berkeley Law School, said: The proceedings are “very smart.”

“They are doing a great job explaining what happened on January 6th,” he said.

He said Plaintiffs may have difficulty proving certain factors.

Given that the proceedings are civil rights proceedings, it is difficult to understand exactly who the civil rights were infringed, Kemerinsky said.

“Is it the civil rights of voters?” He said. “When a lot of people get together and try to thwart an abortion clinic, it’s an obvious conspiracy to thwart human rights, but the question here is who’s civil rights are being violated.”

Second, Chemerinsky said it may be difficult to prove that the actions of the far-right group were driven by racism, as the complaint suggests. There is little doubt that the group has a racist ideology, but he says it’s hard to prove that racism was behind their attempts to thwart elections. rice field.

“Is this intentionally racial? Or were they racists acting to keep the people they wanted to work in power?” Kemerinsky asked. rice field.

Chemerinsky said the central premise of the proceedings is strong. Defendants colluded to prevent Congress and Parliamentary police from performing their duties through intimidation and intimidation.

Criminal conspiracy case in progress

Many of the people nominated in the proceedings face criminal accusations because of their alleged role in the parliamentary attack. Federal prosecutors have filed three criminal conspiracy cases against a group of Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, and Sleeper Centers.

Unlike criminal cases, where prosecutors have to prove their proceedings beyond reasonable suspicion, plaintiffs in civil proceedings have a low standard of “evidence superiority” or a low probability of exceeding 50%. .. Chemerinsky said it is generally easier to prove a civil conspiracy claim than a criminal conspiracy claim.

The lawyers of the seven parliamentary police officers have the advantage that the criminal proceedings proceed in parallel with their proceedings, creating evidence that can be used against the defendants in civil proceedings.

Mr Delosh said he hopes to reveal the true dangers the proceedings pose to the American people. He said on January 6 that he was absolutely shocked by the violence and violence against him and his fellow officers.

“It’s a threat, a period. It’s a threat to domestic terrorists that the general public needs to be aware of,” he said. “I don’t want this to happen again elsewhere in the country.”

Contribution: Dinah Voyles Pulver

This article was originally published in USA TODAY: Parliamentary police sued Donald Trump, Roger Stone, and far-right militants