Judge allows rally violence lawsuit against Trump to proceed

Originally published at: http://boingboing.net/2017/04/02/judge-allows-rally-violence-la.html




Should have used that as the headline. It would have been an exception to Betteridge’s law.

There are only two reasons why Trump ever held rallies — to incite othes to violence and to inflate his own ego.


Don’t forget hat sales.


Is there even a small chance that Tmurp will face any repercussions from this? It’s a monetary suit, not criminal, so I get the feeling this will just go on the massive pile of lawsuits against him and get forgotten.


I think even that’s overstating it. He’s saying the plaintiffs have a nonzero chance of prevailing, which is all a judge should say at this point.

In motions like this, the judge is obliged to basically take the plaintiff’s case at face value in terms of the facts being presented. He’s not handicapping the result at all.


The guy has openly called for the assassination of his political rivals, has KKK connections, has openly employed people who openly declare themselves Nazis, he is openly racist to Hispanics and deeper hues, though they more American than he. He has not payed tax and refused to cooperate with the tax authorities, which was enough to jug Al Capone. His wife was part of the eastern European stock he was trading at the time, and he still has escort agencies. In all, there is enough against him to dish four or five ordinary presidents. He wants more defence budget for his undisclosed projects. You are heading down the road that ends as Auschwitz and Belsen, and his popularity has just dipped beneath forty percent for a bit. There are people in BoingBoing forums saying we should stick with him because the ‘bad nazis’ might get in. Give him another six months, and he could have those judges shot.

No, really. Wake up America! Or should that be Amerka Erwache? Sheesh guys, I am saying this from post-Brexit UK, which is ruled by asset-stripping bankers, and it really looks that bad even from here. Nearly forty percent of the USA seem to be card-carrying bad guys. Believe it. And get a grip while you still can.


What thread are the cheeto-stain supporting trolls on now?
They sometimes lead to lively discussions.

Also, what is this about "bad Nazis?"
And here I thought that they were all cuddly and adorable…
…and sweet smelling.


How does that constitute an instruction to rough ‘them’ up? This smells like an easily dismissible test case, the failure of which will then discourage far more serious investigations from even being attempted. Tinfoil milliners might even suspect a conspiracy-to-fail here.

It could also be the other times where he said “knock the hell out of them, I’ll pay all your fines, don’t worry about it.”

That’s operating a militia and turning against lawful protesters. With the extreme likelihood of gun violence, considering the kind of people who show up at his rallies.


He’ll settle.

No lawyer would let him on the witness stand.


The plaintiff is in no way compelled to accept the settlement. That’s why they have their day in court. Let’s see the buffoon on the witness stand.


Indeed, how crazy would it be if a sitting President of the United States had to agree to pay out a huge cash settlement to people he had personally wronged? Boy would THAT be awkward.



I hope Trump wins this one.

It would be a very dangerous precedent to consider a phase like “Get them out of here” is incitement to violence, and that the organizers are responsible for the actions of “bad elements” that attend their events.

Such a precedent could be used to shut down almost any protest movement.


Context is everything: "because violence had broken out at a prior Trump rally and that known hate group members were in the Louisville crowd, Trump’s ordering the removal of an African-American woman was “particularly reckless.”

That part was dismissed. From the article: “Hale did dismiss one of the plaintiffs’ claims that Trump was vicariously liable for Heimbach and Bamberger’s actions. The men weren’t employed by Trump or his campaign and therefore weren’t under his control during the rally, the judge wrote.”

Even with that said, I don’t think you can absolve Tmurp from responsibility for his crowds. He’s pandered to dangerous and violent people/mindsets, and it’s either irresponsible or extremely oblivious of him to not take that into account when making inflammatory statements.


How about

“So if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, **knock the crap out of him, would you? Seriously, okay, just knock the hell—**I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees; I promise, I promise.”
—Trump to rally crowd in Iowa, February 2016


That’s an unlawful quid-pro-quo situation right there, and should have gotten him a felony charge.


There’s one smoking a joint-- and another with spots!


Pretty sure the only good Nazi is a dead Nazi. Although a punched Nazi is also pretty fun