A judge rules Trump may have incited violence … and Trump again has his own mouth to blame

[Crabtownboy]

The courts keep taking Donald Trump both seriously and literally. And the president's word choices are proving to be a real headache.

A federal judge in Kentucky is the latest to take Trump at his word when he says something controversial. Judge David J. Hale ruled against efforts by Trump's attorneys to throw out a lawsuit accusing him of inciting violence against protesters at a March 2016 campaign rally in Louisville.

At the rally, Trump repeatedly said “get 'em out of here” before, according to the protesters, they were shoved and punched by his supporters. Trump's attorneys sought to have the case dismissed on free speech grounds, arguing that he didn't intend for his supporters to use force. But Hale noted that speech inciting violence is not protected by the First Amendment and ruled that there is plenty of evidence that the protesters' injuries were a “direct and proximate result” of Trump's words.

“It is plausible that Trump’s direction to ‘get 'em out of here’ advocated the use of force,” Hale wrote. “It was an order, an instruction, a command.”

Analysis | A judge rules Trump may have incited violence … and Trump again has his own mouth to blame

 

[carpro]

There is no shortage of idiot judges.

 

[Alcott]

And obama encouraged massive illegal voting.

Video: Obama ‘encourages illegals to vote’

 

[HAMel]

Judge David J. Hale was appointed to the bench in 2014 by Obama. 'nuff said.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Judge David J. Hale was appointed to the bench in 2014 by Obama. 'nuff said.

He was approved by a Republican controlled congress.

I guess if you view if Trump had yelled "FIRE!" that would have been OK also.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

The Senate Committee on the Judiciary that approved Hale was made up of 10 democrats and 8 republicans. All 31 senate votes against him were republican.

 

[HankD]

Analysis | A judge rules Trump may have incited violence … and Trump again has his own mouth to blame

Fake Analysis.

HankD

 

[Crabtownboy]

Fake Analysis.

HankD

Why?

 

[Yeshua1]

The courts keep taking Donald Trump both seriously and literally. And the president's word choices are proving to be a real headache.

A federal judge in Kentucky is the latest to take Trump at his word when he says something controversial. Judge David J. Hale ruled against efforts by Trump's attorneys to throw out a lawsuit accusing him of inciting violence against protesters at a March 2016 campaign rally in Louisville.

At the rally, Trump repeatedly said “get 'em out of here” before, according to the protesters, they were shoved and punched by his supporters. Trump's attorneys sought to have the case dismissed on free speech grounds, arguing that he didn't intend for his supporters to use force. But Hale noted that speech inciting violence is not protected by the First Amendment and ruled that there is plenty of evidence that the protesters' injuries were a “direct and proximate result” of Trump's words.

“It is plausible that Trump’s direction to ‘get 'em out of here’ advocated the use of force,” Hale wrote. “It was an order, an instruction, a command.”

Analysis | A judge rules Trump may have incited violence … and Trump again has his own mouth to blame

Arer you and the judge also pointing out that Black lives matter has been a major cause of cops being killed off? and that was caused by President Obama giving lip service to this situation?

 

[HankD]

Why?

Each individual is responsible for his/her own crime.
Each individual that destroyed property and/or committed violence upon another person made the decision to commit violence.

Some made that decision some did not.

When Cain slew Abel God did not blame Abel but Cain.

HankD

 

[Yeshua1]

Each individual is responsible for his/her own crime.
Each individual that destroyed property and/or committed violence upon another person made the decision to commit violence.

Some made that decision some did not.

When Cain slew Abel God did not blame Abel but Cain.

HankD

 

[Yeshua1]

Did nor know trump has the power to control minds! is he like ProfX of the X man then?

 

[Revmitchell]

The part of the op that tripped itself up:

It's merely the latest example of Trump's team arguing that his controversial words shouldn't be taken literally. But though that argument may have held water politically during the 2016 campaign, it has since repeatedly hurt Trump's cause when his words have been at issue in legal proceedings.

Trump never "literally" or otherwise said for anyone to hurt anyone. So the op is intentionally misrepresenting what happened. Rather dishonest of the Times to do that.

 

[Yeshua1]

The part of the op that tripped itself up:



Trump never "literally" or otherwise said for anyone to hurt anyone. So the op is intentionally misrepresenting what happened. Rather dishonest of the Times to do that.

Fits into their belief that he is evil incarnate!

 

[Alcott]

He was approved by a Republican controlled congress.

Robert Bork was approved unanimously by a demorcat-controlled Congress for the Court of Appeals. Yet, for the Supreme Court he was 'unfit.' Explain that one in terms of playing politics.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Each individual is responsible for his/her own crime.
Each individual that destroyed property and/or committed violence upon another person made the decision to commit violence.

Some made that decision some did not.

When Cain slew Abel God did not blame Abel but Cain.

HankD

Is is permissible to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater?

There must be great fear among Trump supporters. The judge did not rule Trump guilty. He simply ruled that the case could continue.

 

[InTheLight]

there is plenty of evidence that the protesters' injuries were a “direct and proximate result” of Trump's words.

OK, what is this evidence?

 

[Yeshua1]

Robert Bork was approved unanimously by a demorcat-controlled Congress for the Court of Appeals. Yet, for the Supreme Court he was 'unfit.' Explain that one in terms of playing politics.

Current Nominee for SC passed 100-0 when up for the appeals , so what changed for the Dems? Ding ding Hillary lost!

 

[HankD]

Is is permissible to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater?

There must be great fear among Trump supporters. The judge did not rule Trump guilty. He simply ruled that the case could continue.

Big problem; He did not yell "Fire".

I have no great fear...

And I don't know anyone of his followers that I know who do and I know quite a few.

HankD

 

[Crabtownboy]

Big problem; He did not yell "Fire".

I have no great fear...

And I don't know anyone of his followers that I know who do and I know quite a few.

HankD

Where is the line drawn in inciting violence?

What words are permissible and what are not?