Bigoted Jackass is One of the Few, the Proud...

[I_Love_Me_Vol.I]

@Monty

What’s wrong with me? On re-reading your post, I can see that you may have been referring to the recently discharged from DEP wannabe Marine. But it very well could be taken that you were directing that comment to me. How about a bit more clarity.

And speaking of clarity, what’s the law on the matter? I buy that the USMC doesn’t want to call DEPer Marines, but everything I’ve seen so far legally shows that they are, in fact, in the USMC. Yeah, nobody’s ever been court-martialed for not showing up, but that’s not the nub here. The question now is: What is the law; is someone in the DEP in the Armed Forces?

OK. I see what you mean. It wasn’t the clearest post ever; neither was it the foggiest. Apology accepted.

[Bricker]

@Morgenstern

The silver lining…

several activists who were punched, kicked and shoved by Trump supporters communicated that they have already started the process of filing these charges — potentially including some against Trump himself for creating and fostering such a hateful and unsafe environment.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/king-wannabe-marine-tossed-donald-trump-rally-antics-article-1.2552048

Wouldn’t that be somethin’.

Funny you should say that.

As it happens, Ms. Nwanguma did indeed sue Trump. The federal district court hearing the matter did not dismiss her claim that Trump’s words amounted to “inciting to riot,” under Kentucky law. Trump’s defense was that they did not, and even if they otherwise would fall under such a definition, they were protected by the First Amendment. The district court did permit an immediate appeal of that decision (called an interlocutory appeal) and the Sixth Circuit has now ruled as follows:

@Sixth Circuit

The court identified a two-part question for review: whether plaintiffs have stated a valid claim under Kentucky law and, if so, whether the First Amendment immunizes Trump from punishment under state law. We answer “no” to the first part, because plaintiffs’ allegations do not satisfy the required elements of “incitement to riot.” As to the second part, we hold “yes,” Trump’s speech enjoys First Amendment protection, because he did not specifically advocate imminent lawless action. The district court’s denial of Trump’s motion to dismiss the claim must therefore be reversed.

Kashiya Nwanguma; Molly Shah; Henry Brousseau v Donald J Trump; Donald J Trump For President Inc.

[SteveG1]

Zombie thread lives again. Other than that, all have to add, is fuck that fat orange bastard loofah faced shit gibbon SCROTUS mother fucker

[Mumberthax]

@the_diego

Always two sides to a story. Without reading the article, I take it he’s white.

Racist.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Well, obviously the guy wasn’t yet a marine. He hadn’t even reached the level of grabastic piece of amphibian shit.

[Max_Torque]

@Bricker

Funny you should say that.

Have you seriously been waiting two and a half years to go “neener neener” in this one long-dead thread?

[madmonk28]

@Max_Torque

Have you seriously been waiting two and a half years to go “neener neener” in this one long-dead thread?

Bricker doesn’t have a lot going on in his personal life.

[Buck_Godot]

OK folks, now that a judge has said that Trumps speech was technically legal we all need to line up and apologize to Bricker on bended knee for saying that it isn’t nice to encourage your follower to use physical force against protesters. You can pick up your sack cloth and ashes on the table to the right.