Does President Trump Have “Absolute Immunity” Against January 6 Triggered Civil Suits?

Why would a man request enhanced security ahead of an event if he wanted the event to spiral chaotically out of control? Logically, he wouldn’t. That’s exactly what happened four days prior to the January 6, 2021, protests that turned violent.

Government memos validate the claim that President Trump’s administration strongly suggested that the National Guard be employed ahead of the scheduled protests. Possibly on orders from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the Capitol Police rejected the offer.

The records prove that President Trump was instrumental in a proposal through the Pentagon made four days before the January 6 riots. Would someone hoping to cause a violent uprising approve of virtually impenetrable security ahead of the attempted coup?

Of course, they wouldn’t. But that’s exactly what President Trump did. That single request proves that he didn’t encourage or support the violence which ensued. President Trump was adamant that the 2020 election was stolen from the American people.

He was defending his right to lead our great nation, a right that Joe Biden and the cheating Democrats stole. The election was a fraud. However, President Trump is not responsible for the out-of-control chaos that happened at the Capitol.

Many believe the inaction by Nancy Pelosi and the Capitol Police are responsible. Reportedly, the U.S. Department of Justice has launched an investigation into the actions and correspondence of President Trump ahead of and on January 6. This is yet another witch hunt.

This Nancy Pelosi orchestrated, January 6 commission (with help from a couple turncoat Republicans) is trying to smear President Trump. It’s a bigger scam than the election. Because of the bogus investigation, reports of civil suits related to January 6 are being reported.

These suits, and much of the January 6 testimony, violated executive privilege. Therefore, President Trump asserts “absolute immunity” in any civil suits surrounding his January 6 actions. President Trump’s legal team released the following statement.

It read: "This question has already been answered by the Supreme Court, which held that the immunity is rooted in constitutional separation of powers, and it is especially important to the President because he deals with matters that are controversial and arouse intense feelings."

President Trump insists that “a judiciary review of executive function would set a poor precedent for the future, allowing the three branches of government to interfere and meddle with one another on ideological grounds.” This allows the party in power to orchestrate witch hunts to attack their political opponents.

Does this sound familiar? It’s been going on since Donald Trump announced his candidacy for the 2016 presidential election. It’s never stopped. Furthermore, it’s been one bogus witch hunt after another. President Trump is a serious threat to the entrenched D.C. swamp rats that lie and manipulate the American people.

He believes that America’s political environment is so polarized by corruption, it’s critical to draw distinct lines. President Trump points to January 6 as a prime example. He said, “The underlying factual dispute regarding the January 6, 2021, violence at the Capitol arouses the passions of many Americans, including members of the bench and bar.”

Corrupt U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland was asked about how such a DOJ investigation could further polarize the nation. He doesn’t care. Garland insisted that his DOJ would pursue justice “without fear or favor.”

As evidence surfaces of the FBI’s manipulation of the Hunter Biden investigation, Garland’s statement seems rather ironic. Garland said his office holds people accountable. But where’s the accountability for a crooked, drug-addicted son who peddles influence to make millions? It appears that investigation doesn’t meet Garland’s criteria for without fear or “favor”.

Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore

The views and opinions expressed here are solely those of the author of the article and not necessarily shared or endorsed by