.华盛顿——前总统的律师唐纳德·特朗普他和他的同事周一辩称，特朗普和其他人去年1月6日在国会大厦骚乱前发表的煽动性言论是受保护的言论，符合他们的官方职责。

在回应与国会1月6日的调查平行进行的民事诉讼时，特朗普的律师声称，当他呼吁数千名支持者“向国会大厦进军”并“拼命战斗”以破坏参议院对2020年大选的认证时，他是在行使自己的官方权利，无意引发暴力选举结果。

特朗普的律师杰西·宾纳尔(Jesse Binnall)说:“从来没有一个人能够成功地就总统任期内发生的事情起诉总统的例子。"总统的绝对豁免权非常重要。"

美国地方法官阿米特·梅塔(Amit Mehta)在华盛顿举行了五个小时的听证会，听证会涉及特朗普试图驳回民事诉讼。加州民主党众议员埃里克·斯威尔(Eric Swalwell)对特朗普和其他一系列人提起了其中一项诉讼，包括小唐纳德·特朗普(Donald Trump Jr .)、特朗普律师鲁迪·朱利安尼(Rudy Giuliani)、阿拉巴马州共和党众议员莫·布鲁克斯(Mo Brooks)和右翼团体“誓言守护者”(the Oath Keepers)，指控他们对特朗普支持者暴力闯入国会大厦负责。

由民主党代表和两名国会警察提起的其他诉讼称，特朗普和布鲁克斯在1月6日及之前的声明基本上符合政治竞选的一部分，因此是公平的诉讼游戏。原告要求对他们在起义期间遭受的身体和精神伤害进行赔偿。

“他谈到的是一个竞选问题，寻求获得一个选举“约瑟夫·塞勒斯说，他是代表斯威尔诉讼的律师之一。”这纯粹是私人行为。"

塞勒斯表示，特朗普的声明是对政治暴力的公开和毫不含糊的呼吁。

“除了总统亲自前往国会大厦破门而入，很难想象还有其他的场景...但他当然是通过第三方代理，通过人群做到的，”他说。

宾纳尔辩称，特朗普要求破坏参议院投票认证程序的呼吁，符合任何高管对平等的政府部门发表评论或批评的权利。

“坦率地说，总统总是有权就其他部门是否能够或应该采取行动发表意见，”他说，并列举了前总统巴拉克·奥巴马公开评论最高法院裁决的案例。

宾纳尔辩称，特朗普已经在1月6日接受了审判——这是他的第二次弹劾审判，当时共和党占多数的参议院宣布他无罪。

“这是他们的补救措施，但他们失败了，”他说。“他们在这里再也吃不到苹果了。”

梅塔多次用问题和挑战切断双方律师的联系。

朱利安尼的律师约瑟夫·西布利曾一度表示，“你根本无法将任何一位演讲者的言论理解为邀请他们加入一个去国会大厦犯罪的阴谋。”

梅塔立即问道:“为什么不呢?”

法官随后详细重述了特朗普本人1月6日的讲话。

“他的遗言是‘去国会大厦’，在此之前是‘展示实力’和‘战斗’。”为什么这不是一个看似合理的邀请，让他们去做暴乱者最终做的事情呢?”梅塔问道那些话很难收回。"

梅塔一度将注意力集中在特朗普长达数小时的沉默上，当时他的支持者与国会大厦警察和华盛顿特区警察发生冲突，并在大楼里横冲直撞。他详细询问了宾纳尔，不谴责或拒绝谴责正在发生的袭击是否可以被解释为认可。

宾纳尔回应说，“你不能有总统有义务采取某些行动或说某些话，否则就会受到诉讼的情况。”

布鲁克斯援引了《韦斯特法尔法案》，这是一个保护联邦雇员在履行公务时不被起诉的法案。然而，司法部律师布莱恩·博因顿告诉法庭，布鲁克斯应该被剥夺这种保护。

博因顿说，布鲁克斯“在特朗普集会上发表这些言论，主张选举特朗普总统”，这一事实确实使这成为一项竞选活动。

布鲁克斯在周一的诉讼中为自己辩护，他告诉法庭，众议院道德委员会拒绝对他提起诉讼。他补充说，1月6日没有正在进行的活动要参加。

布鲁克斯说:“竞选活动于11月3日结束。“那之后的一切都是法律程序。”

Trump attorneys cite immunity, want Jan. 6 lawsuits tossed

WASHINGTON -- Attorneys for former PresidentDonald Trumpand his associates argued Monday that incendiary statements by Trump and others last Jan. 6 prior to the Capitol riot were protected speech and in line with their official duties.

In response to civil suits running parallel to Congress' own Jan. 6 inquiry, Trump's lawyers claimed he was acting within his official rights and had no intention to spark violence when he called on thousands of supporters to “march to the Capitol” and “fight like hell” to disrupt the Senate's certification of the 2020electionresults.

“There has never been an example of someone successfully being able to sue a president for something that happened during his term of office,” said Trump lawyer Jesse Binnall. “That absolute immunity of the presidency is very important.”

The five-hour hearing in Washington before U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta concerned Trump's attempts to have the civil suits dismissed. Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell of California brought one of the suits against Trump and a host of others, including Donald Trump Jr., Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, Alabama Republican Rep. Mo Brooks and right-wing group the Oath Keepers, charging responsibility for the violent breach of the Capitol building by Trump supporters.

The other lawsuits, brought by Democratic representatives and two Capitol Police officers, claim that statements by Trump and Brooks on and before Jan. 6 essentially qualify as part of a political campaign, and are therefore fair game for litigation. Plaintiffs are seeking damages for the physical and emotional injuries they sustained during the insurrection.

“What he spoke about was a campaign issue, seeking to secure anelection,” said Joseph Sellers, one of the attorney's representing Swalwell's suit. “This was a purely private act.”

Sellers said Trump's statements were an overt and unambiguous call for political violence.

“It's hard to conceive of a scenario other than the president traveling down to the Capitol himself and busting through the doors ... but of course he did that through 3rd-party agents, through the crowd,” he said.

Binnall argued that Trump's calls to derail the Senate vote certification process were in line with any executive's right to comment or criticize a co-equal government branch.

“A president always has the authority to speak on whether or not any of the other branches, frankly, can or should take action,” he said, refencing cases where former President Barack Obama publicly commented on Supreme Court decisions.

Binnall argued that Trump has already been subject to a trial over Jan. 6 — his second impeachment trial, where he was acquitted by the then-Republican-majority Senate.

“That was their remedy and they failed," he said. “They don’t get another bite of the apple here.”

Mehta repeatedly cut off lawyers on both sides with questions and challenges.

Giuliani lawyer Joseph Sibley at one point stated, “There's simply no way you can construe the statements that were made by any of the speakers to be an invitation to join a conspiracy to go to the Capitol and commit crimes.”

Mehta immediately asked, “Why not?”

The judge then refenced Trump's own Jan. 6 speech in detail.

“His last words were ‘go to the Capitol’ and before that it was ‘show strength’ and ‘fight.’ Why isn't that a plausible invitation to do exactly what the rioters ended up doing?” Mehta asked. ”Those words are hard to walk back."

Mehta at one point focused on the hours-long silence from Trump as his supporters battled Capitol Police and D.C. police officers and rampaged through the building. He questioned Binnall at length about whether that failure or refusal to condemn the assault as it was happening could be interpreted as approval.

Binnall responded, “You can not have a situation where the president is obligated to take certain actions or say certain things or else be subject to litigation.”

Brooks has invoked the Westfall Act, a statue that protects federal employees from being sued over actions taken while performing their official duties. However, Justice Department lawyer Brian Boynton told the court that Brooks should be denied such protection.

The fact that Brooks was “advocating for the election of President Trump with these remarks at a Trump rally does make this a campaign activity,” Boynton said.

Brooks, who represented himself in Monday's proceedings, told the court that a House of Representatives ethics committee declined to pursue charges against him. He added that there was no ongoing campaign to participate in on Jan. 6.

“The campaign for election ended on November 3,” Brooks said. “Everything after that was a legal proceeding.”