Recommended.

the people pushing that girl around????

I wondered why she was just kind of standing there and not running and then I realized that they were all around her and she probably felt fearful.

If a group had me completely surrounded and were pushing me I wouldn't know where to walk to and I might just stand there too.

Here is the video on Youtube:

Trump incited these bullies.

One hopes that the District Attorney, after review, upgrades to criminal assault. But Trump will not be touched.

who are exercising their 1st Amendment right of free speech?

That old man definitely needs to be charged. Imagine that at a packed event people getting jostled around....oh noes.

...on April 1. Hopefully it's not a joke.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/kentucky/articles/2017-04-01/judge-denies-trumps-free-speech-defense-in-protester-case and the Guardian (AP as well): https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/01/judge-rejects-trump-defense-claim-incited-violence-protesters

....running for Congress.

We were desperate for good news

But it means almost nothing.

See my explanation below about the standard for a motion to dismiss.

...by the Secret Service at the end of one particularly vicious episode. Kudos to the Men in Black for protecting her.

Need I point out that Katy is a very young, slender, innocent-looking, and non-threatening woman? DTs really hates female journos, has contempt for them as he does all women (witness his recent treatment of Robin -- sorry, her full name escapes me -- a black woman with 20 years experience in DC). But he really gets off on inciting mob violence, and the Katy Tur incidents were egregious.

I wish these protestors every success in their lawsuit, and hope they have a good pro bono lawyer.

Lock me up!!!11

Lock me up!!!11

Lock me up!!!11

Please, please, please, impanel me on the jury that tries this case.
I promise to be objective, and try this case on its merits without prejudice and other considerations.
I'll even pay my own travel expenses, and forego the allowance for expenses (lost wages and parking).

I just want to be part of the judicial process that tells the pee-Resident that he's responsible for this deplorable behavior and must pay the consequences.

If it's not Flynn asking for immunity to spill the beans on Donald, then it is the staff salaries in the White House - with Queen Ivanka - or it is somebody suing the Donald?

Only one of those three possibilities is not a distraction.

For what? who the hell knows.....

< / sarc >

The last figure I saw, during the campaign, was at least 3500. Wonder what the count is now?

Rec

while acknowledging that certain of Trump's defenses also may be plausible. The bar for overcoming a motion to dismiss in a civil case is very low. Lower than the ultimate standard in a civil case (preponderance of the evidence) and much much lower than the standard in a criminal case (beyond a reasonable doubt). At this stage, I can't imagine a prosecutor bringing charges.

but inciting them to escalate.

... of angry brownshirts.

dRumpfenfuhrer also said several times in his campaign speeches that he'd pay for lawyers if fans attacked protestors.

Heimbach's group stabbed a bunch of anti-nazi protestors in SacTo at a nazi rally they held during the elections.

...From what I read, that is what limits freedom of speech..

Trump...went against number four, inciting a riot. That is illegal..I wonder how this will be handled.??...

I got it.....Lock him up...!!!!!

It endangers the right of others to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

SCOTUS unanimously rules that the lawsuit could proceed...it make me happy to see how the GOP is finally facing karma...and karma is a bitch.

Not to rain on the parade, but the judge in this case did not find that Trump incited violence. He merely found, applying the low-bar standard applicable to ruling on motions to dismiss, that the plaintiffs, whose allegations must be taken as true for purposes of ruling on the motion, had stated facts that supported a "plausible" (not necessarily probable) case against Trump. To the extent the judge "cites" or "finds" the things as claimed in the article, in most instances, he was merely reciting what the complaint alleges -- not any finding on his part.

Yes, its a good thing that the court allowed the case to continue instead of dismissing it outright. But defeating a motion to dismiss is not the same thing as winning a case.

Non-legal reporters pretty frequently get legal opinions wrong - especially when the opinion is about preliminarly dispositive rulings.

The court has to take all of the alleged facts as absolutely true - and evaluate whehter a jury, without completely ignoring the law, could find against the defendant based on those assumed-true facts.

That standard - which allows the case to survive -

Ignores whether the facts, as alleged are true or not

Ignores any defenses the other side may offer

Ignores the weight of the evidence

Essentially all the plaintiff had to do, in order to survive a motion to dismiss was to identify the legal claim (e.g. incitement to riot), and make up some facts that match each element of the claim. (If they were actually made up, the attorney would be in trouble - but the claim would still survive a motion to dismiss, becase the facts alleged have to be taken as true at this stage of the case.)

It is an extremely low bar. Motions to dismiss have such a low standard, that losing a motion to dismiss is more indicative of attorney incompetence than anything else - incompetence in bringing a case that is not supported at all by the law (one barred by statute because it was filed too late, for example) , incompetence in drafting a complaint that fails to allege an essential element of the claim (here, for example, if they had failed to recite any statements made by Trump that could actually incite violence), or incomptence in drafting a complaint without enough clarity as to what the claim is (e.g. I've seen claims that are just fat-dump rants against the other side ending in a claim for money, that never identify what it is - legally - they believe the defendant did wrong.)

BLOTUS should suck it up and bring out the checkbook BIGLY.

Fight Trump

Kudos to Judge Hale!