Trump lawyer: ‘No right’ to protest at rallies

Trump lawyer: ‘No right’ to protest at rallies
Trump lawyer: ‘No right’ to protest at rallies

How the hell did we get all the way back here.

Idiots blaming all their economic and social issues on brown people instead of the banks and coporations who've privatized their government for their own personal profits.

President Donald Trump’s lawyers argued in a Thursday court filing that protesters “have no right” to “express dissenting views” at his campaign rallies because such protests infringed on his First Amendment rights.

What? We can't have free speech because of free speech? Do you know what the fuck freedom is, motherfucker?

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

-George Orwell, Animal Farm

Wat.....

How concise. However you left out poor education and evangelicalism, although you did call them idiots. Otherwise I think that about sums up all this b.s.

so trump's official stance now is against the right to protest against his tyranny.

can't say i am surprised...

This numskull is saying that protesters are infringing on Trump's 1A right to say "get them out of here".

I think Trump's lawyer is trying to throw the case....

The factors are many...

Russians Mobsters & their increasing deals with spies & bankers for money-laundering. Underfunding of counter-intel Reduction in fed. prosecutions Lack of Critical Thinking in Education systems Decentralized education, instead of federalized education. Religious fanaticism. Too much skepticism of institutions designed to protect the public, and too little skepticism for people's use of social-media and media-outlets. Russians First Past the Post system. Weakening and speeding up of Primary races by the parties. A disintegration of the post-WWII attitudes leading to widespread distrust and inability to recognize threats from dictatorships. Lack of training in students to identify & evaluate evidence and burdens of proof. Basic logic skills. Deregulating the banking industries. Increasing opaqueness and decreasing transparency in money-laundering. It cannot be underestimated the amount of different strategies the Russians pursued and invested in.

We need guns in case we need to violently overthrow the government, but merely protesting just crosses the line.

If people can't protest at Trump rallies, why should Westboro get the freedom to invade funerals?

i thought the alt-right and trumpers were ALL about free speech? so now you're telling me that's a load of shit too?

No it isn't, Lana. It's an allegorical novella about stalinism by George Orwell and spoiler alert, IT SUCKS!!!

They're only defenders of free speech when that speech is used to further a political ideology that, if enacted, will end free speech.

Totally not fascists.

Trust me, as someone who supports firearm reforms I'm more than a little conflicted.

It's one thing when someone needs to overthrow the government because "Obama is going to force us all to buy healthcare and obey Sharia law!" and another when Donald Trump's lawyer is literally saying protesters "have no right to [express dissenting views] as part of the campaign rally of the political candidates they oppose."

“Of course, protesters have their own First Amendment right to express dissenting views, but they have no right to do so as part of the campaign rally of the political candidates they oppose,” Trump’s lawyers wrote.

When your lawyers are forced to make these kinds of arguments, it's a sign that you're in trouble.

Either trying to throw it or he has the literal worst lawyers

Sarcasm and irony died in 2016, so I have no idea how to take this comment.

Dictators do this. That's undeniable.

If any Trump supporters want to explain how this one is acceptable, please click reply below.

(And for the record, a political campaign rally is not the same as an event on a campus, although I am not comfortable with what has been happening there either so whatabouting with that isn't going to go anywhere.)

The US was settled by literally the world's first joint stock corporations (The Virginia Companies of Plymouth and London) and managed by the second & third sons of British nobility acting as their warlord merchants. The religious nutcases were sort of their grunts and dupes. So not a lot has changed.

My favorite tidbit is how George Washington's grandfather put down Bacon's Rebellion, and advised the Crown that we need to grant white indentured servants some more rights while simultaneously "hardening" the institution of slavery for blacks, so they'll never band together like that again.

i mean... that whole idea of guns to violently overthrow the gouvernment might get tested.

The whole book is an analogy to this election. Trump is Napoleon, and the animals are his blind followers

I'm not sure our sense of the innate Democracy and egalitarianism of the US was much more than the lingering effects of WWII propaganda, and as time passes, the less democracy, pluralism, and truth are held as core American values.

Today's seniors, our largest and most influential block of voters, no longer clearly remember the new deal or the fight against fascism. Instead they were shaped by the anti-communist culture of the cold war and our conflicts with the ME and terrorism.

Do you know what the fuck freedom is, motherfucker?

Money, as all Republicans will tell you.

The right to free speech doesn't protect you from the free speech of others.

because such protests infringed on his First Amendment rights.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" - The First Amendment

Hey James O'Keefe! I know him! He's the guy who gets people fired with videos that are too edited to be used as evidence in a legal proceeding.

I live in a town filled with working class Trump voters. This will sound judgmental, but fuck it... many also make bad life choices.

Snowflake

https://i.imgur.com/OSRsfAu.jpg

His argument is very Trumpian.

The argument is whether or not Trump incited violence against someone. His argument is that they had no right to be there, and if they weren't there then nothing would have happened.

It's dumb because it just implicates that he did in fact incite violence.

A husband and wife can't be charged for the same crime.

OR... Banks using their power propaganda that CREATES idiots who blame brown people instead of banks. I think that the majority of Americans, republicans or otherwise, the majority of people all want the same thing. The real enemy is the Ultra Rich

Let's not forget that they also want to be able to say bigoted/racist shit without consequence.

confronted

True, but the irony is palpable. Trump supporters go apeshit when their speech is "stifled", but them and Trump can't handle dissent. Just compare this response from Trump with what Obama did when with a protester.

There is no legal argument here, it's a character argument. He didn't even throw out the first pitch because he was too scared of getting boo'd.

And is now facing felony charges himself for same videos.

Yeah, I wanna know this too actually.

Thug lawyer.

But he hires the best people

Right?

First amendment rights protect the people from the government, not the government from the people

Westboro doesn't have the right to actually invade a private funeral. They have the right to protest on public property or private property they've received permission to be on.

For Trump's rallies the argument I think hinges on if it is a public event, private event, and also whether the venue is government owned or private property. However even if their legal theory is valid, I don't think it's applicable. Even if the protesters didn't have the right to be there, and they were infringing on Trump's right, that doesn't give Trump the right to incite violence against the protesters.

That didn't happen. And if it did, it wasn't that bad. And if it was, that's not a big deal. And if it is, that's not my client's fault. And if it was, he didn't mean it. And if he did... You deserved it.

Conservatives would be a loyalists in 1776.

Some would have idealistic reasons for doing so, but the majority are just cowards.

We aren't there yet, and hopefully won't get there.

Thomas Jefferson disagrees, douchebag.

'....protesters “have no right” to “express dissenting views” at his campaign rallies because such protests infringed on his First Amendment rights.'

This statement makes absolutely no sense.

"What does he mean when he says words?"

Mobsters & their increasing deals with spies & bankers for money-laundering.

There's a saying about the KGB/FSB and Russian organized crime: who do you think organized them? The Russian mob is a feature of their system and a mob that can act with impunity in its home country and state support abroad has a lot of power.

I mean what's going to happen first? Nuclear war with North Korea, American Civil War II, or Trump is Impeached? I'd really like one of those to happen, like, yesterday and I'm sure you know which one I'm talking about. The other two are very scary and the chances of them happening are slowly going up.

I don't know how she could read it with those huge truckosaurus hands anyways.

But it's Archer

But then wouldn't they be trespassing, and not violating his right to free speech? It appears that he's making an argument on the grounds of free speech, not trespassing.

A public university like Berkeley can't discriminate against a speaker on the content of his or her message by law. If someone is invited through proper channels, they can't censor them.

Sorry, but that's BS. The first amendment guarantees the right of someone to speak their mind. It does not give anyone the right to be a chosen speaker. And you saying "lefties" doesn't make it any more true.

It also has nothing to do with this case.

A little FYI assuming you're referring to the 1st Amendment:

James Madison, not Thomas Jefferson, drafted the Bill of Rights.

Actually, with Trump's very well documented mob connections that is likely.

Unless he's saying the rallies are private events?

He is. The problem (according to the District Court ruling) is that the protesters allege that tickets/entry to the rally were not denied to people simply for not supporting Trump. And it follows from there that they weren't automatically trespassers and couldn't be physically removed unless they were first asked to leave and refused to do so.

There doesn't appear to be any disagreement (even from the plaintiffs) that the campaign has the right to ask them to leave a campaign rally peacefully. The issue is that they weren't asked to leave and Trump allegedly incited a violent removal.

There may be further First Amendment issues with what is/isn't a public event. I dunno, I'm not a lawyer -- all I know is the question doesn't appear to have been raised yet.

That is the dumbest article I've seen in some time.

Just because a candidate is popular with Washington insiders doesn't mean they are being "forced" on anyone. You should blame the people who voted for Clinton for "forcing" her on you if you think that winning the majority of votes constitutes an undemocratic ploy.

This closely mirrors his supporters' views on counterprotesting.

Literally the first sentence of the article:

President Donald Trump’s lawyers argued in a Thursday court filing that protesters “have no right” to “express dissenting views” at his campaign rallies because such protests infringed on his First Amendment rights.

Says who.

I have the worst fucking attorneys
I don't think that's true

I'm sure that's exactly what the British said when the tea party went down.

You clearly missed the class where "Rubber vs Glue" was discussed

He meant what he said.

Rule #1: Believe the autocrat. He means what he says. Whenever you find yourself thinking, or hear others claiming, that he is exaggerating, that is our innate tendency to reach for a rationalization. This will happen often: humans seem to have evolved to practice denial when confronted publicly with the unacceptable. Back in the 1930s, The New York Times assured its readers that Hitler’s anti-Semitism was all posture. More recently, the same newspaper made a telling choice between two statements made by Putin’s press secretary Dmitry Peskov following a police crackdown on protesters in Moscow: “The police acted mildly—I would have liked them to act more harshly” rather than those protesters’ “liver should have been spread all over the pavement.” Perhaps the journalists could not believe their ears. But they should—both in the Russian case, and in the American one. For all the admiration Trump has expressed for Putin, the two men are very different; if anything, there is even more reason to listen to everything Trump has said. He has no political establishment into which to fold himself following the campaign, and therefore no reason to shed his campaign rhetoric. On the contrary: it is now the establishment that is rushing to accommodate him—from the president, who met with him at the White House on Thursday, to the leaders of the Republican Party, who are discarding their long-held scruples to embrace his radical positions.

— Masha Gessen - Autocracy: Rules for Survival

Yeah, parts of it. The Puritans were unpleasant that way, but a number of other colonies were founded based on more liberal, inclusive concepts. Pennsylvania and Rhode Island were very tolerant.

Actually, Roger Williams, the founder of what became Rhode Island did it that way because he was thrown out of Massachusetts Bay Colony for his religious views.

William Penn, who got Pennsylvania on royal grant to repay a debt. simply felt that freedom of religious conviction was a good idea. As such both colonies attracted fair amounts of diverse people, and early. The oldest synagogue in the United States is in Rhode Island.

Pennsylvania, by contrast, attracted a fairly good cross section of people, and the welcoming atmosphere attracted the Amish, for instance, and other persecuted German or German speaking religious groups.

I agree with you. However, his lawyer goes on to state that he did instruct the audience to remove protesters by force if necessary. That's literally (the real kind) inciting violence.

lol, James O'Keefe.

You're just precious.

You're sorely mistaken. The declaration of independence omits all mention of God. Thomas Jefferson was a staunch believer in the separation of religion and politics/state. Most of the founding fathers were deists at best, which at the time was the closest thing you could come to being an atheist.

The Constitution is a secular document and the country was built on secular precepts.

It doesn't help when the US was settled/founded by religious nutcase - one of the saving grace of my own country was the fact that it was so expensive to get here you had to either be middle class or a person who had high demand skill resulting in the vast majority being nominally religious at best.

Also made a huge deal about how his video was gonna bring down CNN, which made the news for like, 5 minutes

This. The founding fathers were the ULTIMATE progressives. They championed the era of enlightenment and renaissance.

It is getting really hard to tell these days.

I would seriously hate to be a lawyer of Trump. How do you defend the stuff that he says?

But they also elected a guy who wants to expand libel laws even though his hands are clearly smaller than what they should be. I mean, they're nice hands, just a little delicate..

This is pretty backwards logic. The 1st Amendment guarantees the right to assembly. Unless he's saying the rallies are private events? But that doesn't come up in the article and isn't always true.

You know you're full of shit posting that video but you did it anyway.

Campaign rallies, unless they are invite only, are not in fact private functions.

If you advertise an event; hold that event at a public venue; and do not charge membership, dues, an entry fee... Then your event is not private.

YMMV: based on the state's laws.

i don't want to get into this with you but precedent has shown that universities are limited public forums and can allow or disallow people from speaking. but really it seems like the trumpers should be setting a better example by letting whoever wants to disagree with trump to speak at his rallies, no?

Trump refused to throw out the first pitch because he was afraid of getting boo'd. There was never gonna be Trumpers that support a joint discussion, they just wanna be a victim so they can complain and go to their safe space.

Buttery males.

To borrow a /sub/t_d meme, "WTF? I hate free speech now!"

They have a right to private property and kick out anyone.

But they can't call it "infringing upon their free speech" or anything constitutional related.

I want a nuclear war just as bad as you do, but I don't think Trump's impeachment chances are going up.

If we were talking about anyone other than Hillary Clinton, you might have a valid point. But, not in this instance. The Clinton's are the only people capable of rigging a Democratic primary because that's how deep Bill's influence runs in the Democratic political establishment.

Nobody was capable of rigging the primary, and the primary wasn't rigged. Just because you think they had sufficient influence to do so doesn't change the fact there's no evidence of it.

Did you sleep through the Democratic primary rigging and forced resignation of DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz along with her DNC staff?

Well again, there was no rigging.

And the DNC staff resigned because their personal emails got hacked and publicized which showed that they privately had political opinions and had personal preferences for one candidate over another. This looked very bad from a political optics perspective and was generally unprofessional, so they resigned as they should. That has nothing to do with rigging anything though, since there was literally nothing in the emails other than the one thing with Donna Brazille that constituted any sort of unethical activity favoring Hillary.

The only people who "missed" that national disgrace are Hillary's Third Way minions and followers who think lying about that history will somehow erase it.

Or the people who actually read the emails instead of reading the fake news reported about them.

The Clinton campaign's voter disenfranchisement efforts

What are you talking about?

If Hillary was as nationally popular as you're attermpting to claim, she would have won the Presidential election.

I don't believe I made any claims about her nationally popularity did I? I said that she won the most votes in the primary therefore winning it, which in your book constitutes rigging because it feels like she must have done something despite no evidence.

And now this is the part where I remind you that she won the popular vote by a lot in the general election, and you trot out whatever retort you have stored up to try and make it seem like winning a lot more votes isn't actually an accurate measure of popularity.

There's no confusing the fact that it did even if the Third Way crowd wants to engage in revisionist history as you're doing here.

What do you think happened in the primary? I've heard all sorts of theories about how it was rigged that have zero corroborating evidence, despite thousands of DNC emails being leaked. I'm looking forward to hearing yours.

Now there's a line I've not heard for a long time.

Yes, while reminding The BlacksTM that its about Personal ResponsiblityTM .

I have not suffered nearly enough brain damage in my life for that statement to make rational sense.

Everyone knows that not one of the important ones.

Today's seniors remember the '70s being weird and having worries about oil and strikes and the '80s as a time of prosperity.

This has been the longest 100 days of my entire life. Normally I'd be grateful for that, since it's usually a good thing when life slows down a bit, but I feel like I've aged 100 years in that time.

The Constitution writers and signers aren't who he's talking about, if I'm reading correctly.

That said, I also don't think he's correct. The puritans were the useful idiots of terminal end of British mercantilism. The crown and the associated trade companies assumed they'd work indefinitely in return for a hands off stance on their religious/social practices.

That was clearly not the case, and here we find ourselves.

If you take a moment to look at it almost every situation republicans complain about and campaign on are that way because of republican policies.

If they remembered anti-communism they'd be more concerned about Trump's bromance with Putin.

It's actually the first right.

I get it, not a public event, but even he should know that is a low hanging fruit comment.

Also the people that got caught on hidden camera trying to bribe people to start riots at the inauguration:

surreptitiously record elements of O’Keefe’s network offering huge sums of money to progressive a...

Not surprised, it's the same argument used to say that the Milo's protesters violated his first amendment rights.

Oh god yeah. One here is always yelling about how the government is keeping him down and he just wants to own his own house. How are they keeping him down? They're not putting out enough winning lottery tickets.

Another step closer to a full fascist takeover.

Heh yeah, the First Amendment literally says the opposite:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The important part being that you can peaceably assemble, as guaranteed by the constitution. I hope this goes to SCOTUS and the 'originalist' Gorsuch has to rule on it...

You're forgetting that Georgia was settled by a guy against slavery, and the white working class just totally refused to work at all because "black people don't mind working, especially in the heat"

TIL J.P. Morgan, George and Jeb Bush's grandpa, and many other industrialists were planning a coup against FDR and installing a fascist dictator.

Hey - if he's campaigning already we shouldn't approve any of his nominations. Those are the rules right? We don't approve nominees during a campaign? (See Merrick Garland)

There is always money in the banana stand.

Weekly World News articles have more credibility than James O'Keefe.

I miss Obama so much :(

THanks for that reminder.

Yeah, that's not true. At all.

It feels like things are starting to pick up a bit now that we are nearing the first 100 days of Trump's presidency, and things are starting to become more dire in Syria and North Korea. In less than 48 hours, we've learned Jason Chaffetz (head of the House Oversight Committee) is suddenly going to resign, Acting Assistant AG Mary McCord (head of the DoJ's Trump-Russia investigation) has suddenly announced her intentions to resign in May to "pursue other opportunities", the FBI has been monitoring Carter Page for about four years now, and that Page's trip in June was the catalyst for the FBI to launch an investigation into Trump-Russia ties.

What is defined as a public event if not a campaign rally? I understand that it's run by a private organization in private facilities, but the campaign has rented the facility to open an event to anyone and everyone who has an interest in coming. The campaign has the right to restrict entrance or kick people out at their discretion, but I see it like you would be restricted from entering a football game without a ticket, and could be kicked out for being unruly. Is a football game not a public event either? What would truly be a public event?

Freedom of speech to them means the freedom to openly express bigotry.

I'm starting to feel like It's a matter of time before the executive branch disregards a judicial ruling and a full blown constitutional crisis unfolds.

Yeah, Archer's a dick anyway.

Yes, and they can get evicted from the venue because the owner/event coordinator/person-in-charge doesn't like them there. That doesn't mean the protester violated Trump's free speech. If they refused to leave after being asked to leave, then they were trespassing.

Makes sense. I read that a lot of them haven't been paid.

You know, I'm pretty sure people do have that right. I could have sworn we had it written down somewhere. Like on a super important document or something.

awww the moonie times. so cute.