Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Trump campaign-lawyers get very imaginative when defending violence at Trump campaign-rallies:
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/20/donald-trump-protest-rallies-speech-237431?utm_source=huffingtonpost.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=pubexchange* Trump's calls to remove the protesters were protected by the 1st Amendment.
* Trump's calls to remove the protesters were not a call to violence, because he added "Don't hurt them."
* The protesters did not have 1st Amendment rights because their chanting and holding up signs violated Trump's 1st Amendment rights to hold a speech.
----------
He should do it like GWB and just declare "Free-Speech-Zones".
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
Or was that a different rally bullying session?
His lawyers also have put forth that it can't go to trial because he's now immune as president (he's not in this case). Yesterday I read in an article on DU that they've even cited Clinton v Jones as a case proving he can't be when in fact that case found the opposite.
It's so weird to me. It's like his lawyers don't really have a good cohesive defense so they're just throwing a variety of shtuff out there to see if one sticks. 
