Skip to content Skip to footer

“Stick to the Facts” — Judge Rejects Claim That Trump Urged “Peace” on Jan. 6

The judge’s comments came during a hearing involving lawsuits that alleged Trump was responsible for the Capitol attack.

President Donald Trump speaks to supporters from The Ellipse near the White House on January 6, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

On Monday, a federal judge rejected several assertions from a lawyer for Donald Trump, and questioned whether the former president’s inaction during the January 6 Capitol attack amounted to an endorsement of the violence that took place that day.

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta for the District of Columbia did not indicate how he plans to rule on a number of civil lawsuits where plaintiffs – including several members of Congress and Capitol Police officers – allege that Trump and many of his allies were responsible for the Capitol attack. But during the hearing, Mehta did push back against a number of claims made by Trump’s lawyer, Jesse Binnall.

Binnall antagonized Mehta, suggesting that the federal judge was inherently biased and unable to rule impartially because he was appointed by former President Barack Obama. (Such an accusation is generally regarded as a major faux pas in legal circles.)

“To suggest that I will treat the former president differently because of his party is simply inappropriate,” Mehta responded.

Mehta also inquired why the former president didn’t do more to stop the violence that was being carried out in his name on January 6, 2021.

“[Why] didn’t Trump denounce the conduct immediately?” Mehta asked.

“You have an almost two-hour window where the President does not say, ‘Stop, get out of the Capitol. This is not what I wanted you to do,'” Mehta said, adding:

What do I do about the fact the President didn’t denounce the conduct immediately … and sent a tweet that arguably exacerbated things? Isn’t that, from a plausibility standpoint, that the President plausibly agreed with the conduct of the people inside the Capitol that day?

In response, Binnall suggested that Trump couldn’t be held responsible for what he didn’t say. “The president cannot be subject to judicial action for any sort of damages for failing to do something,” Binnall said.

Mehta then rejected Binnall’s argument that Trump’s words preceding the violence were protected by his presidential privileges, noting previous Supreme Court rulings that indicate that Trump’s speech on January 6 was not protected by those standards.

Later, when Binnall claimed that Trump had encouraged his loyalists to be peaceful, Mehta pointed out that the lawyer was purposefully overlooking incendiary statements from the former president that seemed to encourage violence.

“You would have me ignore what [Trump] said in its entirety?” Mehta asked.

“Let’s stick with the facts,” he added.

Recent reporting has revealed that Trump didn’t want to tell his loyalists to act “peacefully” after they breached the Capitol. According to a former aide who spoke out last week, Trump was reluctant to include the message in a tweet to his followers as the attack was unfolding. In a video hours after the attack began, Trump again failed to condemn the actions of his loyalists at the Capitol, and instead told his followers that he “loved” them.

The lawsuits being discussed in the hearing on Monday allege that Trump’s words before the Capitol attack were directly responsible for the violence that followed. In addition to peddling lies about election fraud — including wrongly alleging that the election was “stolen … by emboldened radical left Democrats” and “the fake news media” — Trump told his loyalists that they’d “never take back our country with weakness,” and encouraged them to go to the Capitol as Congress was certifying the results of the presidential race.

“We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore,” Trump went on.

Following the January 6 Capitol attack, many of Trump’s loyalists said the former president’s words moved them to breach the Capitol, a point that will likely come up during other hearings related to the three lawsuits.

Truthout Is Preparing to Meet Trump’s Agenda With Resistance at Every Turn

Dear Truthout Community,

If you feel rage, despondency, confusion and deep fear today, you are not alone. We’re feeling it too. We are heartsick. Facing down Trump’s fascist agenda, we are desperately worried about the most vulnerable people among us, including our loved ones and everyone in the Truthout community, and our minds are racing a million miles a minute to try to map out all that needs to be done.

We must give ourselves space to grieve and feel our fear, feel our rage, and keep in the forefront of our mind the stark truth that millions of real human lives are on the line. And simultaneously, we’ve got to get to work, take stock of our resources, and prepare to throw ourselves full force into the movement.

Journalism is a linchpin of that movement. Even as we are reeling, we’re summoning up all the energy we can to face down what’s coming, because we know that one of the sharpest weapons against fascism is publishing the truth.

There are many terrifying planks to the Trump agenda, and we plan to devote ourselves to reporting thoroughly on each one and, crucially, covering the movements resisting them. We also recognize that Trump is a dire threat to journalism itself, and that we must take this seriously from the outset.

After the election, the four of us sat down to have some hard but necessary conversations about Truthout under a Trump presidency. How would we defend our publication from an avalanche of far right lawsuits that seek to bankrupt us? How would we keep our reporters safe if they need to cover outbreaks of political violence, or if they are targeted by authorities? How will we urgently produce the practical analysis, tools and movement coverage that you need right now — breaking through our normal routines to meet a terrifying moment in ways that best serve you?

It will be a tough, scary four years to produce social justice-driven journalism. We need to deliver news, strategy, liberatory ideas, tools and movement-sparking solutions with a force that we never have had to before. And at the same time, we desperately need to protect our ability to do so.

We know this is such a painful moment and donations may understandably be the last thing on your mind. But we must ask for your support, which is needed in a new and urgent way.

We promise we will kick into an even higher gear to give you truthful news that cuts against the disinformation and vitriol and hate and violence. We promise to publish analyses that will serve the needs of the movements we all rely on to survive the next four years, and even build for the future. We promise to be responsive, to recognize you as members of our community with a vital stake and voice in this work.

Please dig deep if you can, but a donation of any amount will be a truly meaningful and tangible action in this cataclysmic historical moment.

We’re with you. Let’s do all we can to move forward together.

With love, rage, and solidarity,

Maya, Negin, Saima, and Ziggy