A federal judge has rejected President Donald Trump’s argument that he is not civilly liable for inciting violence during the deadly Capitol riot because his “Stop the Steal” speech amounted to a rapper inciting a crowd with divisive lyrics.
On January 6, 2021, the president told his followers to “fight like hell” or “you’re not going to have a country anymore” before they stormed the Capitol in an attempt to stop Congress from certifying President Joe Biden’s election victory.
He later argued in his response to the civil lawsuit that his remarks should be interpreted as constitutionally protected speech rather than unlawful incitement to violence because an adverse ruling would limit “public citizen speech.”
President Trump, seen on screen
“To illustrate this point, he advanced the hypothesis of a popular rapper (someone who bears some resemblance to Eminem) whose concert performances resulted in fan violence,” U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, a Barack Obama appointee, wrote in a ruling this week.
The hypothesis describes a rapper known for his provocative and controversial lyrics that “describe explicit acts of violence, including gun violence, rape, and depictions of the rapper knocking out his wife.”
The rapper realizes that his lyrics sometimes inspire young people to “behave emotionally and sometimes violently,” but still takes the stage in front of thousands of fans to perform some of his most offensive songs.
He then said, “Fight the people! Fight the powers that be! Don’t let them tell you what to do! Fight like hell!” Chaos ensued, with fans storming the nearest venue, stealing food from concession stands, attacking vendors, and beating backstage security.
Rapper Eminem has been an outspoken Trump critic for years. / Jeff Kravitz/ FilmMagic
According to Trump, if a court deemed his “Stop the Steal” speech to be incitement, the supposed rapper would also be held responsible for the actions of his fans – an argument Mehta flatly rejected.
“This is what is missing from the president’s hypothesis,” he wrote.
To make an accurate comparison, the rapper would have needed to tell his fans weeks before the concert that “the powers that be” had taken something valuable from them through fraud and deceit. He needed to know that they were planning to take violent action that day, including bringing weapons to the show to recover what had been stolen at the time.
The rapper is also required to specifically identify offending members of the “establishment” and instruct his fans to swarm in thousands at the exact time the “establishment” tries to take away those valuables.
“Only with these facts in mind will rap concerts start to feel like January 6th,” Mehta wrote. “The court will agree that, under this modified presumption, the rapper’s expression appears to be inflammatory speech.”
He refused to dismiss the complaint on First Amendment grounds and ruled that much of Trump’s conduct that day exceeded the scope of presidential immunity, allowing the case – brought by Democratic lawmakers and Capitol Police – to move forward.
The Daily Beast has reached out to the White House for comment.
The ruling was handed down earlier this week, but began circulating on social media on Thursday after Lawfare senior editor Roger Parloff noticed Eminem’s assumptions embedded in the ruling.
Democratic lawmakers and Capitol Police are trying to hold President Trump civilly liable for the January 6, 2021 riot. /Anadolu/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images
Special counsel Jack Smith also criminally prosecuted Trump for his conduct before and during the Capitol riot, but that case was dropped after Trump won re-election.
Ironically, Eminem has been an outspoken critic of Trump for years, using his interviews, music and live performances to attack the president and his policies.
