Judge Okays Lawsuit against Trump Campaign; says President may have incited Violence

A trio of protestors has been given the green signal to go forward with a lawsuit against Trump’s presidential campaign after they suffered violent attacks from Trump supporters. One of the Trump supporters responsible for the attack is also believed to be a white nationalist.

The permission to move ahead was granted by US District Judge, David Hale. However, the judge has rubbished the idea of the attackers being agents employed by the current President himself. Even so, the Judge did state that Trump’s words at the rally could have incited the violent attack. He also went on to deny the defendant’s motions to strike out certain portions from the lawsuit.

Hale said that a majority of the claims made by the plaintiffs were sufficient at the current stage of the case.

The plaintiffs, Molly Shah, Kashiya Nwanguma, and Henry Brousseau, had attended the rally last year, in March, at Louisville. Their objective was to peacefully protest against the Trump campaign. Nwanguma, according to several reports, had carried a sign depicting Trump as a pig.

During the course of the rally, it is believed that presidential candidate requested that the protesters be removed. Following Trump’s “orders”, Alvin Bamberger and Matthew Heimbach, a representative of the Traditionalist Workers Party (known for its white nationalist beliefs), had attacked the protesting trio.

Brousseau and Nwanguma have accused Bamberger and Heimbach of assault and battery. Other than that, the protesters have also blamed Trump’s campaign of trying to incite a riot and being neglectful and reckless.

Trump’s lawyers have come out against the lawsuit stating that it was a threat to constitutional protections and that it could stifle political speech. However, Judge Hale sated that there could be no protection for speech that may have tried to incite violence. 

Witnesses at the rally state that the aggressive attacks on the protestors came almost immediately after Trump had requested their removal.

The case is one of the most memorable ones as far as aggression against Trump protestors is concerned because of tangible video evidence being present. In fact, the video had even gone viral following the incident.

It’s also only the most recent case where Trump’s team has argued in support of statements not being literal. Though this rhetoric might have helped during the election, it hasn’t helped the president with current legal proceedings.

Leave a Comment