Federal Judge John Bates concluded in recent findings that there is no reasonable interpretation of a speech Trump gave January 6 according to which the then-president provided implied or certain permission for his followers to somehow legally get into the Capitol. Instead, the judge says Trump’s words may have constituted a push for his listeners to break the law.
That kind of finding could, if taken further, directly implicate the now former president in at least some of the many criminal acts his followers undertook at the Capitol early last year. Bates referenced findings of the House committee investigating the Capitol riot, which recently released a final report, in which the judge concluded investigators did not establish that Trump’s January 6 speech constituted concrete or implied permission for the events that followed. Bates was responding to a push from charged rioter Alexander Sheppard to use a claimed belief of acting on at least implied authority in his defense at an upcoming trial. Bates denied the push. Dustin Thompson, another charged participant in the riot, also tried to deflect blame onto Trump for actions he took, but that jury convicted him on all counts.
Bates found that Donald’s comments made that day “could signal to protesters that entering the Capitol and stopping the certification would be unlawful,” citing his insistence on his supporters mobilizing to “fight like hell” in service of his crusade against the presidential election results. The federal judge added that “the conclusions reached here — that even if protesters believed they were following orders, they were not misled about the legality of their actions” are “consistent with the Select Committee’s findings” in blocking Sheppard from using the defense of a belief he should evade serious consequences because of something Trump said.
Sheppard was previously charged with trespassing and disorderly conduct offenses, alongside a count of obstruction of an official proceeding, a felony offense prosecutors have repeatedly used in Capitol riot cases. It is also one of the charges the riot committee named when recently recommending Trump for prosecution by the Justice Department on several federal criminal offenses because of his actions after the last presidential election. The committee also recommended several high-profile associates of Trump for prosecution over their involvement in what panel investigators concluded was conspiring to defraud the United States, a federal offense. That allegation connects to the scheme to assemble claimed electoral votes for Trump in states Biden won — a plot now under federal investigation by Jack Smith.
