Donald Trump’s legal woes continue, though that’s probably an observation that’s evergreen.
Attorney Mark Zaid said on X (the platform formerly called Twitter) that the plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging Trump in relation to the death of Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick have pointed the court to recent judicial conclusions in Colorado. There, Judge Sarah Wallace recently found that Trump engaged in insurrection under Constitutional standards related to that concept, connecting Trump’s stream of commentary after his 2020 election loss with what happened at the Capitol on January 6, 2021. It’s arguably not a difficult connection to make considering how many of the rioters themselves have linked their actions to Trump.
Sicknick was among the officers who helped defend the Capitol that day, and he died shortly thereafter. Medical authorities pointed to natural causes, but the medical examiner in D.C. allowed the possibility of the Capitol riot having impacted Sicknick’s condition.
The lawsuit against Trump in which Zaid is involved also has the involvement of Sandra Garza, the late officer’s longtime romantic partner who, along with Sicknick’s mother and brothers, has been outspoken since the fallen officer’s passing. The originally filed case sought at least $10 million in financial penalties on Trump, with an additional $10 million each on two members of the riot crowd variously involved in direct confrontations with Sicknick per available details.
“Today as part of our lawsuit on behalf of fallen USCP Officer Brian Sicknick we filed for the Court’s consideration the CO decision determining Trump “engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 through incitement, and that the First Amendment does not protect Trump’s speech,”” Zaid said.
The lawsuit, originally filed earlier this year, alleges Trump possesses responsibility for Sicknick’s death. The Colorado case to which Zaid pointed is moving to appeals after a swift trial in which, among other portions of her decision, the judge also rebuffed the idea that then-President Trump actually authorized 10,000+ troops for protection ahead of January 6 and concluded the First Amendment didn’t protect Trump’s variously connected remarks.
