Trump Can Be Sued for Jan. 6 Riot Harm, Justice Dept. Says

In this Jan. 6, 2021, file photo with the White House in the background, President Donald Trump speaks at a rally in Washington. (AP)
In this Jan. 6, 2021, file photo with the White House in the background, President Donald Trump speaks at a rally in Washington. (AP)
TT

Trump Can Be Sued for Jan. 6 Riot Harm, Justice Dept. Says

In this Jan. 6, 2021, file photo with the White House in the background, President Donald Trump speaks at a rally in Washington. (AP)
In this Jan. 6, 2021, file photo with the White House in the background, President Donald Trump speaks at a rally in Washington. (AP)

Former President Donald Trump can be sued by injured Capitol Police officers and Democratic lawmakers over the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the US Capitol, the Justice Department said Thursday in a federal court case testing Trump's legal vulnerability for his speech before the riot.

The Justice Department told a Washington federal appeals court in a legal filing that it should allow the lawsuits to move forward, rejecting Trump’s argument that he is immune from the claims.

The department said it takes no position on the lawsuits’ claims that the former president’s words incited the attack on the Capitol. Nevertheless, Justice lawyers told the court that a president would not be protected by "absolute immunity" if his words were found to have been an "incitement of imminent private violence."

"As the Nation’s leader and head of state, the President has 'an extraordinary power to speak to his fellow citizens and on their behalf,' they wrote. "But that traditional function is one of public communication and persuasion, not incitement of imminent private violence."

The brief was filed by lawyers of the Justice Department's Civil Division and has no bearing on a separate criminal investigation by a department special counsel into whether Trump can be criminally charged over efforts to undo President Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 presidential election ahead of the Capitol riot. In fact, the lawyers note that they are not taking a position with respect to potential criminal liability for Trump or anyone else.

Trump’s lawyers have argued he was acting within the bounds of his official duties and had no intention to spark violence when he called on thousands of supporters to "march to the Capitol" and "fight like hell" before the riot erupted.

"The actions of rioters do not strip President Trump of immunity," his lawyers wrote in court papers. "In the run-up to January 6th and on the day itself, President Trump was acting well within the scope of ordinary presidential action when he engaged in open discussion and debate about the integrity of the 2020 election."

A Trump spokesperson said Thursday that the president "repeatedly called for peace, patriotism, and respect for our men and women of law enforcement" on Jan. 6 and that the courts "should rule in favor of President Trump in short order and dismiss these frivolous lawsuits."

The case is among many legal woes facing Trump as he mounts another bid for the White House in 2024.

A prosecutor in Georgia has been investigating whether Trump and his allies broke the law as they tried to overturn his election defeat in that state. Trump is also under federal criminal investigation over top secret documents found at his Florida estate.

In the separate investigation into Trump and his allies' efforts to keep the Republican president in power, special counsel Jack Smith has subpoenaed former Vice President Mike Pence, who has said he will fight the subpoena.

Trump is appealing a decision by a federal judge in Washington, who last year rejected efforts by the former president to toss out the conspiracy civil lawsuits filed by the lawmakers and police officers. US District Judge Amit Mehta ruled that Trump’s words during a rally before the violent storming of the US Capitol were likely "words of incitement not protected by the First Amendment."

"Only in the most extraordinary circumstances could a court not recognize that the First Amendment protects a President’s speech," Mehta wrote in his February 2022 ruling. "But the court believes this is that case."

One of the lawsuits, filed by Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., alleges that "Trump directly incited the violence at the Capitol that followed and then watched approvingly as the building was overrun." Two other lawsuits were also filed, one by other House Democrats and another by officers James Blassingame and Sidney Hemby.

The House Democrats' lawsuit cites a federal civil rights law that was enacted to counter the Ku Klux Klan’s intimidation of officials. The cases describe in detail how Trump and others spread baseless claims of election fraud, both before and after the 2020 presidential election was declared, and charge that they helped to rile up the thousands of rioters before they stormed the Capitol.

The lawsuits seek damages for the physical and emotional injuries the plaintiffs sustained during the insurrection.

Even if the appeals court agrees that Trump can be sued, those who brought the lawsuit still face an uphill battle. They would need to show there was more than fiery rhetoric, but a direct and intentional call for imminent violence, said Laurie Levenson, a Loyola Law School professor and former federal prosecutor.

"We are really far away from knowing that even if the court allows the lawsuit to go forward whether they would be successful," she said. "Even if the court says hypothetically you can bring an action against a president, I think they're likely to draw a line that is very generous to the president's protected conduct."

In its filing, the Justice Department cautioned that the "court must take care not to adopt rules that would unduly chill legitimate presidential communication" or saddle a president with burdensome and intrusive lawsuits.

"In exercising their traditional communicative functions, Presidents routinely address controversial issues that are the subject of passionate feelings," the department wrote. "Presidents may at times use strong rhetoric. And some who hear that rhetoric may overreact, or even respond with violence."



Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor Arrested on Suspicion of Misconduct in Public Office

FILE - Britain’s Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly known as Prince Andrew, looks round as he leaves after attending the Easter Matins Service at St. George's Chapel, Windsor Castle, England, April 20, 2025. (AP Photo/Kirsty Wigglesworth, File)
FILE - Britain’s Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly known as Prince Andrew, looks round as he leaves after attending the Easter Matins Service at St. George's Chapel, Windsor Castle, England, April 20, 2025. (AP Photo/Kirsty Wigglesworth, File)
TT

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor Arrested on Suspicion of Misconduct in Public Office

FILE - Britain’s Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly known as Prince Andrew, looks round as he leaves after attending the Easter Matins Service at St. George's Chapel, Windsor Castle, England, April 20, 2025. (AP Photo/Kirsty Wigglesworth, File)
FILE - Britain’s Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly known as Prince Andrew, looks round as he leaves after attending the Easter Matins Service at St. George's Chapel, Windsor Castle, England, April 20, 2025. (AP Photo/Kirsty Wigglesworth, File)

UK police arrested Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor on Thursday on suspicion of misconduct in public office.

The Thames Valley Police, an agency that covers areas west of London, including Mountbatten-Windsor’s former home, said it was “assessing” reports that the former Prince Andrew sent trade reports to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in 2010. The assessment followed the release of millions of pages of documents connected to a US investigation of Epstein.

The police force did not name Mountbatten-Windsor, as is normal under UK law. But when asked if he had been arrested, the force pointed to a statement saying that they had arrested a man in his 60s. Mountbatten-Windsor is 66.

“Following a thorough assessment, we have now opened an investigation into this allegation of misconduct in public office,’’ the statement said. “It is important that we protect the integrity and objectivity of our investigation as we work with our partners to investigate this alleged offence."

“We understand the significant public interest in this case, and we will provide updates at the appropriate time,” the statement added.

Pictures circulated online appearing to show unmarked police cars at Wood Farm on the Sandringham Estate in Norfolk, with plainclothes officers appearing to gather outside the home of Mountbatten-Windsor.


Georgia Arrests Two Foreigners Trying to Purchase Uranium

FILE PHOTO: A block with the symbol, atomic number and mass number of Uranium (U) element, in this illustration taken January 21, 2026. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration/File Photo
FILE PHOTO: A block with the symbol, atomic number and mass number of Uranium (U) element, in this illustration taken January 21, 2026. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration/File Photo
TT

Georgia Arrests Two Foreigners Trying to Purchase Uranium

FILE PHOTO: A block with the symbol, atomic number and mass number of Uranium (U) element, in this illustration taken January 21, 2026. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration/File Photo
FILE PHOTO: A block with the symbol, atomic number and mass number of Uranium (U) element, in this illustration taken January 21, 2026. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration/File Photo

Georgia has ‌detained two people who attempted to purchase $3 million worth of uranium and a cache of a radioactive isotope found in nuclear weapons testing programs, the national security service said on Thursday.

Two foreign nationals from unspecified countries were arrested in the city of Kutaisi, the State Security Service said in a statement.

"They were planning to ‌illegally purchase ‌nuclear material uranium and radioactive ‌substance ⁠Cesium 137 for $3 ⁠million and illegally transport it to the territory of another country," Reuters quoted it as saying.

It said other foreigners had been arriving in Georgia in recent weeks with the aim of purchasing and transporting the nuclear and ⁠radioactive materials, without elaborating further.

The ‌statement did ‌not specify the quantity of materials the individuals were ‌attempting to procure. There were ‌no details on the substances' origin or potential destination.

Cesium 137 is a radioactive isotope present primarily in the aftermath of nuclear weapons testing ‌and nuclear power plant accidents such as the Chernobyl disaster in ⁠then-Soviet ⁠Ukraine in 1986.

The security of nuclear materials was one of the biggest concerns after the 1991 fall of the Soviet Union, of which Georgia was part. There have been several serious incidents involving the illicit trade in nuclear materials in Georgia over recent decades.

Most recently, three Chinese citizens were arrested in the capital Tbilisi for attempting to purchase two kilograms of "nuclear material" uranium.


Former South Korean President Yoon Receives Life Sentence for Imposing Martial Law

FILE PHOTO: South Korea’s impeached President Yoon Suk Yeol attends the fourth hearing of his impeachment trial over his short-lived imposition of martial law at the Constitutional Court in Seoul, South Korea, 23 January 2025. JEON HEON-KYUN/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo
FILE PHOTO: South Korea’s impeached President Yoon Suk Yeol attends the fourth hearing of his impeachment trial over his short-lived imposition of martial law at the Constitutional Court in Seoul, South Korea, 23 January 2025. JEON HEON-KYUN/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo
TT

Former South Korean President Yoon Receives Life Sentence for Imposing Martial Law

FILE PHOTO: South Korea’s impeached President Yoon Suk Yeol attends the fourth hearing of his impeachment trial over his short-lived imposition of martial law at the Constitutional Court in Seoul, South Korea, 23 January 2025. JEON HEON-KYUN/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo
FILE PHOTO: South Korea’s impeached President Yoon Suk Yeol attends the fourth hearing of his impeachment trial over his short-lived imposition of martial law at the Constitutional Court in Seoul, South Korea, 23 January 2025. JEON HEON-KYUN/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo

Former South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol was sentenced to life in prison for his brief imposition of martial law in a dramatic culmination to the country’s biggest political crisis in decades.

Yoon was ousted from office after a baffling attempt to overcome an opposition-controlled legislature by declaring martial law and sending troops to surround the National Assembly on Dec. 3, 2024, The Associated Press said.

Judge Jee Kui-youn of the Seoul Central District Court said he found Yoon guilty of rebellion for mobilizing military and police forces in an illegal attempt to seize the liberal-led Assembly, arrest politicians and establish unchecked power for a “considerable” time.

Martial law crisis recalled dictatorial past Yoon’s martial law imposition, the first of its kind in more than four decades, harkened back to South Korea’s past military-backed governments when authorities occasionally proclaimed emergency decrees that allowed them to station soldiers, tanks and armored vehicles on streets or at public places such as schools to prevent anti-government demonstrations.

As lawmakers rushed to the National Assembly, Yoon’s martial law command issued a proclamation declaring sweeping powers, including suspending political activities, controlling the media and publications, and allowing arrests without warrants.

The decree lasted about six hours before being lifted after a quorum of lawmakers managed to break through a military blockade and unanimously voted to lift the measure.

Yoon was suspended from office on Dec. 14, 2024, after being impeached by lawmakers and was formally removed by the Constitutional Court in April 2025. He has been under arrest since last July while facing multiple criminal trials, with the rebellion charge carrying the most severe punishment.

Yoon's lawyers reject conviction Yoon Kap-keun, one of the former president’s lawyers, accused Jee of issuing a “predetermined verdict” based solely on prosecutors’ arguments and said the “rule of law” had collapsed. He said he would discuss whether to appeal with his client and the rest of the legal team.

Yoon Suk Yeol told the court the martial law decree was only meant to raise public awareness of how the liberals were paralyzing state affairs, and that he was prepared to respect lawmakers if they voted against the measure.

Prosecutors said it was clear Yoon was attempting to disable the legislature and prevent lawmakers from lifting the measure through voting, actions that exceeded his constitutional authority even under martial law.

In announcing Yoon and Kim’s verdicts, Jee said the decision to send troops to the National Assembly was key to his determination that the imposition of martial law amounted to rebellion.

“This court finds that the purpose of (Yoon’s) actions was to send troops to the National Assembly, block the Assembly building and arrest key figures, including the National Assembly speaker and the leaders of both the ruling and opposition parties, in order to prevent lawmakers from gathering to deliberate or vote,” Jee said. “It’s sufficiently established that he intended to obstruct or paralyze the Assembly’s activities so that it would be unable to properly perform its functions for a considerable period of time.”

Protesters rally outside court

As Yoon arrived in court, hundreds of police officers watched closely as Yoon supporters rallied outside a judicial complex, their cries rising as the prison bus transporting him drove past. Yoon’s critics gathered nearby, demanding the death penalty.

There were no immediate reports of major clashes following the verdict.

A special prosecutor had demanded the death penalty for Yoon Suk Yeol, saying his actions posed a threat to the country’s democracy and deserved the most serious punishment available, but most analysts expected a life sentence since the poorly-planned power grab did not result in casualties.

South Korea has not executed a death row inmate since 1997, in what is widely seen as a de facto moratorium on capital punishment amid calls for its abolition.

Other officials sentenced for enforcing martial law

The court also convicted and sentenced several former military and police officials involved in enforcing Yoon’s martial law decree, including ex-Defense Minister Kim Yong Hyun, who received a 30-year jail term for his central role in planning the measure and mobilizing the military.

Last month, Yoon was sentenced to five years in prison for resisting arrest, fabricating the martial law proclamation and sidestepping a legally mandated full Cabinet meeting before declaring the measure.

The Seoul Central Court has also convicted two members of Yoon’s Cabinet in other cases. That includes Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, who received a 23-year prison sentence for attempting to legitimize the decree by forcing it through a Cabinet Council meeting, falsifying records and lying under oath. Han has appealed the verdict.

Yoon is the first former South Korean president to receive a life sentence since former military dictator Chun Doo-hwan, who was sentenced to death in 1996 for his 1979 coup, a bloody 1980 crackdown on pro-democracy protesters in Gwangju that left more than 200 people dead or missing, and corruption.

The Supreme Court later reduced his sentence to life imprisonment, and he was released in late 1997 under a special presidential pardon. He died in 2021.