DOJ desires civil rights lawsuit in opposition to Trump over violent Lafayette Sq. clearing dismissed

Justice Department attorneys urged a federal judge to deny a lawsuit against former President Donald Trump and former Attorney General William Barr for evicting a crowd of Black Lives Matter protesters from Lafayette Square last June, claiming that “the safety of the President ” in the foreground.”

The lawsuit, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, Black Lives Matter, and other left-wing civil rights groups, was filed last June after Trump swept the area to pose for a photo op in front of St. John’s Episcopal Church for a Bible in the Bible Hand.

The demonstration in Lafayette Square, organized in protest of the police killing of George Floyd and others, was largely peaceful until Barr ordered military and law enforcement officials to disperse around 1,000 protesters with smoke grenades, tear gas and pepperballs. Law enforcement agencies also used shields and bats to physically evacuate protesters from the premises.

The lawsuit in question argues that Trump, Barr and others “have illegally conspired to violate the rights of protesters”. However, according to the Washington Post, federal prosecutors have refuted that the attack was necessary to protect Trump. Citing a 2004 case where a judge ruled that intelligence agents could not be held responsible for damage sustained by protesters in the name of the President’s safety, Justice Department Attorney David G. Cutler argued, on Friday that plaintiffs are “trying to arrest the lawyer.” generally personally liable for damage caused by measures taken to keep the President of the United States safe. “

The presiding judge, US District Judge Dabney L. Friedrich, was open to Cutler’s argument and asked, “How do I get over the clear national security concerns about the security of the President?”

However, ACLU attorneys have denied the notion that Trump faced serious danger at the time, claiming instead that the former president took the opportunity to target protesters “for their point of view, their message, their speech.” The lawyers said that the dismissal of the lawsuit would “allow the brutality with impunity”.

Randy M. Mastro, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher co-chair who represents plaintiffs on the case, said the DOJ’s defense contained “altered statements” and pointed to a spate of Trump’s tweets leading to the incident who pointed to strong threats from violence.

Last summer, Trump called on various state governors on Twitter to “dominate your city and state” amid mass protests. “In Washington,” he said, “we’re going to do something people have never seen before.”

The former president even threatened to greet demonstrators in front of the White House “with the most vicious dogs and ominous weapons I have ever seen”.

Facing tweets like these, Mastro argued, “The behavior here has been so blatantly illegal and so blatantly unconstitutional that it needs remedial action, and we are here today, Your Honor, to see that nothing like this happens again in our country. “

Friedrich promised to resolve the case “in the near future”.