Here is what is going on, broken down into simple terms...
1. From this:
2. We get:
- a claim for compensation due to "incitement of a riot" and "physical injuries, emotional distress, humiliation, and mental anguish";
- a court decision that, 'yep, there might be a case for incitement of a riot and physical injuries, emotional distress, humiliation, and mental anguish.'
Here is the brief, in full:
3. I feel the Trump campaign team should chip in for the accused's defense. At another rally, Trump brought two men on stage who had helped clear away those who were shouting disruptively in the audience (see below):
So, Trump would be wise to show that he actually cares about his supporters, and is not just paying lip service to them for a vote. Helping to defend his supporters in court would be a sign of solidarity. One should not just try to get him or herself dismissed from the case and disappear.
Furthermore, while the accusers will probably have a wealthy civil rights organization chomping at the bit to take their case, the accused - including a frail, old Vietnam War veteran - surely do not. Under the circumstances, support from Trump would be a tremendous gesture of solidarity.
4. Things we've learned (detailed analysis): in this case against Trump, the federal judge had the option of forcing the accuser to first demonstrate that her case for Trump's incitement was fully plausible instead of just not impossible. The judge went with the latter standard, which is a dated standard. Yet, in doing so, he cited a case that ultimately goes against the dated standard. With this sort of inconsistency, one has to wonder: is it all politically motivated?
As a result of the lawsuit, now the Presidential Administration has to devote time to some bizarre sideshow where three people who wanted to be a disruption lived their dream, and one girl got pushed before stopping to take a text and a selfie. That is the world we live in, folks. Where the event-crasher claims emotional distress, humiliation, and mental anguish. From this event, we also learn that, if a person disrupts a political event, and you are a civilian, you cannot push that person out of the way, or you may be liable for that person's emotional distress, humiliation, and mental anguish if they become "fearful of an unwanted touching". Meanwhile, as this video shows, you cannot walk down a public street in California without getting beaten into a bloody mess by those who oppose Trump, and there is no judicial recourse for you.
5. The good. The Trump Administration needs a healthy reminder of where we stand and what our situation on the ground is. Well, here we are. Remember who got you elected, Mr. President!
1. From this:
2. We get:
- a claim for compensation due to "incitement of a riot" and "physical injuries, emotional distress, humiliation, and mental anguish";
- a court decision that, 'yep, there might be a case for incitement of a riot and physical injuries, emotional distress, humiliation, and mental anguish.'
Here is the brief, in full:
3. I feel the Trump campaign team should chip in for the accused's defense. At another rally, Trump brought two men on stage who had helped clear away those who were shouting disruptively in the audience (see below):
So, Trump would be wise to show that he actually cares about his supporters, and is not just paying lip service to them for a vote. Helping to defend his supporters in court would be a sign of solidarity. One should not just try to get him or herself dismissed from the case and disappear.
Furthermore, while the accusers will probably have a wealthy civil rights organization chomping at the bit to take their case, the accused - including a frail, old Vietnam War veteran - surely do not. Under the circumstances, support from Trump would be a tremendous gesture of solidarity.
4. Things we've learned (detailed analysis): in this case against Trump, the federal judge had the option of forcing the accuser to first demonstrate that her case for Trump's incitement was fully plausible instead of just not impossible. The judge went with the latter standard, which is a dated standard. Yet, in doing so, he cited a case that ultimately goes against the dated standard. With this sort of inconsistency, one has to wonder: is it all politically motivated?
As a result of the lawsuit, now the Presidential Administration has to devote time to some bizarre sideshow where three people who wanted to be a disruption lived their dream, and one girl got pushed before stopping to take a text and a selfie. That is the world we live in, folks. Where the event-crasher claims emotional distress, humiliation, and mental anguish. From this event, we also learn that, if a person disrupts a political event, and you are a civilian, you cannot push that person out of the way, or you may be liable for that person's emotional distress, humiliation, and mental anguish if they become "fearful of an unwanted touching". Meanwhile, as this video shows, you cannot walk down a public street in California without getting beaten into a bloody mess by those who oppose Trump, and there is no judicial recourse for you.
5. The good. The Trump Administration needs a healthy reminder of where we stand and what our situation on the ground is. Well, here we are. Remember who got you elected, Mr. President!
