Susan Estrich: Donald Trump's fighting words

From the commentary: At best, it will be a costly distraction and, most likely, an embarrassing one, as is everything that revisits Jan. 6, and makes the case — without a word being spoken — that the Republicans need to move on beyond Trump.

Susan Estrich
Susan Estrich commentary
Tribune graphic

Former President Donald Trump lost an important round with the Justice Department last week, when the department chose to file a brief not taking his side in the fight over his responsibility for the Jan. 6 riots. The department generally takes a broad view of executive privilege. But even a broad view has limits.

Susan Estrich
Susan Estrich commentary
Tribune graphic
More Susan Estrich:
From the commentary: The antisemitism on college campuses coincides with a troubling rise in anti-Israel sentiment.
From the commentary: Sometimes, for some women, separate is not only equal but better.
From the commentary: For it to turn its back on its own values, and on the voices of concern it is hearing from its friends in the American Jewish community, would be a very troubling and dangerous mistake.
From the commentary: Drag shows are, at their core, political speech in the sense that they challenge our perception of gender and gender roles and force us to reexamine familiar stereotypes even as we laugh at the exaggerated representations of femininity.

The lawsuit in question, brought by Democratic members of Congress and Capitol police officers, claims that Trump's speech to his supporters incited the violence that followed. The former president has claimed that even if it did, he is — as president — absolutely immune from suit.

The Justice Department was asked to weigh in on that point by the United States Court of Appeals. The Department did, last week, in a brief that took issue with Trump's claim to be absolutely immune from suit. "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters," Trump famously claimed in the 2016 campaign. He might not lose voters, but he would lose the protections of the presidency.

"Speaking to the public on matters of public concern is a traditional function of the presidency, and the outer perimeter of the president's office includes a vast realm of such speech," the brief asserted. "But that traditional function is one of public communication. It does not include incitement of imminent private violence of the sort the district court found that plaintiffs' complaints have plausibly alleged here."

In other words, even the president of the United States does not have the right to incite "private violence." Such speech is not protected. It may be a basis for liability. Even the shield of absolute immunity does not protect against the incitement of imminent private violence. Even the president of the United States cannot falsely cry "fire" in a crowded theatre.


"The United States here expresses no view on the district court's conclusion that plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that President Trump's Jan. 6 speech incited the subsequent attack on the Capitol," the Justice Department wrote. "But because actual incitement would be unprotected by absolute immunity even if it came in the context of a speech on matters of public concern, this court should reject the categorical argument President Trump pressed below and renews on appeal."

In other words, Trump cannot hide behind a wall of executive privilege. He must put forward his own defense in this action. What did Trump think his supporters were going to do when they got to the Capitol? What was he sending them to do? What did he expect them to do? Why didn't he try to stop them, if that wasn't what he wanted?

More Commentary:
From the commentary: Take springtime, season of quickening, season of equal parts shadow and light — the very equation at its astronomical heart, the vernal equinox marking the fleeting moment when earth’s axis aligns directly with the sun, and the planet is neatly halved with equal allotments of light, and the sun shines squarely on the equator.
From the commentary: During these times of increasing polarization, community conversations in libraries continue to show us there is so much more that connects us than divides us.
From the commentary: In the administration’s rush to appease the powerful oil industry, it has once again demonstrated that no matter which party is in power, it must kowtow to corporate interests who green-wash their way to record profits at the expense of our planet’s health
From the commentary: There is a way, meanwhile, politicians can put themselves in charge: They can buy the business.
From the commentary: Parents are witnessing the fallout from these political attacks on teachers as districts resort to substitutes and larger class sizes because they can’t hire enough staff.
From the commentary: The divisive rhetoric permeating the political landscape today is even filtering down to what used to be less partisan areas — like official White House and congressional accounts.
From the commentary: As bystanders in the political farce consuming much of the Republican race for president, we can give thanks that DeSantis has decided to battle against the sinister forces of wokeness and leave the important issues pretty much alone.
From the commentary: The fact that most Americans speak only English puts our country at an economic disadvantage and threatens national security if we cannot understand and analyze potential threats such as terrorism or contagions.
From the commentary: Further, Pence was perfectly willing to watch a multi-front coup attempt inflate on every side of him for months without making a sound, the same way he spent every hour of Trump’s decency-mocking presidency as its primary lickspittle.
From the commentary: Government bailouts do not penalize bad management and lack of oversight, or risky investment strategies that caused the problem.

Trump seems determined to rerun the 2020 election, at least in his rallies. But it is one thing to revisit the old applause lines in a speech, and another to be caught on the defensive in expensive and intrusive litigation. Trump needs more court battles like a hole in the head. This is one more source of aggravation for him, one more occasion for him to be dragged through the mud for inciting a riot that resulted in deaths and serious injuries. That the Justice Department, which was willing to stand up for his claims to immunity for his comments about E. Jean Carroll, who accused him of rape, would not stand up for him here, is noteworthy.

Even absolute immunity has its limits. Leave it to Donald Trump to exceed them. This is one more lawsuit that he has to defend. At best, it will be a costly distraction and, most likely, an embarrassing one, as is everything that revisits Jan. 6, and makes the case — without a word being spoken — that the Republicans need to move on beyond Trump.

This Susan Estrich commentary is her opinion. She can be reached at


This story was written by one of our partner news agencies. Forum Communications Company uses content from agencies such as Reuters, Kaiser Health News, Tribune News Service and others to provide a wider range of news to our readers. Learn more about the news services FCC uses here.


Opinion by Susan Estrich
Susan Estrich is an American lawyer, professor, author, political operative, and political commentator. She can be reached via
What To Read Next
Get Local