Trump Sued For Inciting Riot

A FEDERAL JUDGE HAS RULED THAT DONALD TRUMP AND HIS
LAWYERS WILL NOT BE ABLE TO DROP A CASE WHERE HE IS ACCUSED
OF INCITING VIOLENCE AT ONE OF HIS RALLIES.
THE RALLY WAS IN LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY, IN MARCH 2016, AND
THERE WAS A VIRAL VIDEO SHOWING TWO PROTESTERS, AND
SPECIFICALLY ONE YOUNG BLACK PROTESTER, AT THE RALLY,
WHO WAS BEING SHOVED OUT OF THE EVENT.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE VIDEO, THEY WERE VERY FORCEFUL, AND THE
WOMAN DECIDED TO GO AHEAD AND FILE A LAWSUIT AGAINST
DONALD TRUMP FOR INCITING THE VIOLENCE.
THE JUDGE, DAVID J HALE, RULED AGAINST EFFORTS BY DONALD
TRUMP'S ATTORNEYS TO THROW OUT A LAWSUIT ACCUSING HIM OF
INCITING VIOLENCE AGAINST PROTESTERS AT A MARCH 2016
CAMPAIGN RALLY IN LOUISVILLE.
THIS IS A STATEMENT FROM THE JUDGE: "TRUMP REPEATEDLY SAID,
GET THEM OUT OF HERE, BEFORE, GOING TO THE PROTESTERS, THEY
WERE PHYSICALLY ñ-
THE JUDGE NOTED THAT SPEECH INCITING VIOLENCE IS NOT
PRODUCTIVE BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT, AND RULED THAT THERE
IS PARTY EVIDENCE THAT THE PROTESTERS INJURIES WERE A
DIRECT AND PROXIMATE RESULT OF TRUMP'S WORDS."
THIS IS YET ANOTHER CASE WHERE TRUMP'S WORDS WORKED
AGAINST HIM.
HE HAS DIARRHEA OF THE MOUTH, HE CAN'T HELP HIMSELF.
SO, DURING THIS RALLY, HE WAS AT THE PODIUM SPEAKING IN
REGARD TO THE PROTESTERS, AND ENCOURAGING HIS PROTESTERS
TO GET THEM OUT, GET THEM OUT, RIGHT?
SO, YOU RILE PEOPLE UP AND SOME OF THEM MIGHT GET FORCEFUL.
THE JUDGE DID MAKE CLEAR THAT THIS DOES NOT MEAN HE WILL
FIND HIM GUILTY, HE IS JUST SAYING, LET'S ADJUDICATE
THIS PROPERLY, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DROP THIS CASE.
SO BASICALLY TRUMP'S ATTORNEYS WERE TRYING TO SAY THAT THIS IS
NOT A LEGITIMATE CASE, LET'S NOT HAVE THIS CASE GO FORWARD,
BECAUSE THEY HAVE A FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO SAY
WHATEVER THEY WANT.
AND THE JUDGE SAID NO, WE WILL SEE IF YOU ACTUALLY DID
INCITE VIOLENCE, THAT'S FOR THE COURT CASE.
BUT IT IS GOING TO GO FORWARD, BECAUSE YOU DO NOT HAVE A
FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO INCITE VIOLENCE.
AND THERE IS A VERY LEGITIMATE CASE TO BE MADE THAT YOU DID.
AND ANOTHER RALLIES, HE TALKED ABOUT, HEY I WILL PAY FOR
YOUR LAWSUIT IF THEY SUE YOU.
THAT IS A CLEAR AND OBVIOUS INVITATION TO ASSAULT THEM,
AND IF THEY SUE YOU I WILL BACK THEM UP.
NOW, OF COURSE, WITH DONALD TRUMP HE DOESN'T MEAN ANY
OF IT, HE WILL RUN AWAY FROM IT IMMEDIATELY, AND THAT IN
THIS CASE WHEN HE IS THE ONE OF BEING ñ HE IS THE ONE BEING
ACCUSED OF INCITING VIOLENCE HE IS LIKE, ME?
I WOULD NEVER.
AND THE JUDGE IS SAYING, YOU MIGHT HAVE ACTUALLY.
AND THAT'S BASED ON EVERYTHING EVERYONE HEARD HIM SAY
DURING THE CAMPAIGNS.
IT'S THE VERY SAME THING THAT HAPPENED WITH HIS PROPOSED
MUSLIM BAN, VERSION 1 AND 2.
YOU CANNOT BAN A RELIGIOUS GROUP FROM ENTERING THE COUNTRY AND
THEY ARE LIKE, THIS IS A MUSLIM BAN, WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
AND THERE IS SO MUCH EVIDENCE OF RUDY GIULIANI AND DONALD TRUMP
SAYING THAT IT IS A MUSLIM BAN.
HIS SUPPORTERS SAY DON'T TAKE HIM SERIOUSLY, DON'T TAKE
HIS WORDS LITERALLY.
WELL, FEDERAL JUDGES DO TAKE HIS WORDS LITERALLY BECAUSE I
ACTUALLY MEAN SOMETHING WHEN IT COMES TO PROCEEDINGS LIKE THIS.
AND THE CASE OF THE MUSLIM BAN HE SAID THAT WE WANTED A
COMPLETE AND TOTAL SHUTDOWN OF MUSLIMS ENTERING THE COUNTRY,
AND THEN HE AFFECTS A TRAVEL BAN, BANNING ENTRY FROM
MUSLIM COUNTRIES.
AND THEY SAY DON'T TAKE IT LITERALLY, AND THE JUDGE IS
LIKE, OF COURSE I AM WHAT YOU TAKE HIM LITERALLY.
IT IS ñ IT IS SUPER IMPORTANT IF IT IS A BAN BASED ON NATIONAL
SECURITY PRINCIPLES, OR IF IT IS A BAN BASED ON
UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES.
THINK ABOUT THAT THOUGH, THEY HAVE TO CONSTANTLY MAKE A CASE,
LITERALLY IN COURT PROCEEDINGS, TO SAY THAT THE PRESIDENT IS AN
IDIOT AND YOU SHOULD NOT TAKE HIM LITERALLY, HE DOESN'T MEAN
ANYTHING HE SAYS.

Trump Sued For Inciting Riot

Latest Posts