WASHINGTON (AP) — Legal experts and other lawyers for former President Donald Trump have dismantled and discredited a document labeled as a “murder blueprint” by a lawyer representing two Capitol Police officers suing Trump. The document alleges that Trump conspired with his supporters to incite violence at the Capitol on January 6th.
In a scathing critique, legal pundits and fellow Trump attorneys dismiss the document as baseless and lacking any legal precedent. They argue that the allegations made by the plaintiffs’ lawyer are frivolous and purely political in nature.
The document in question was filed by the lawyer representing Capitol Police officers Brian Sicknick and Howard Liebengood who died by suicide following the January 6th attack. The lawyer claims that the document, which outlines events leading up to the attack, provides evidence for his clients’ case against Trump.
However, legal experts have vehemently rejected these claims. One lawyer stated, “This document is a desperate attempt to connect the events of January 6th to Trump and to generate sympathy for the plaintiffs. It lacks any substance and is riddled with factual inaccuracies.”
Trump’s legal team also criticized the document, calling it a “blatant attempt to create a false narrative.” They argue that the document ignores the lack of evidence linking Trump to the violent actions of a small group of his supporters.
Moreover, legal precedent undermines the argument made in the document. Previous cases have established that presidents cannot be held personally liable for the actions of their supporters in the absence of clear evidence of direct involvement or incitement to violence.
In summary, legal experts and other Trump lawyers have discredited a document presented as evidence in a lawsuit against Trump. They argue that the document lacks legal precedent, contains factual errors, and is a politically motivated attempt to connect Trump to the events of January 6th. Furthermore, previous legal cases have established that presidents cannot be held personally responsible for the actions of their supporters without clear evidence of direct involvement or incitement.