The president’s lawyers claim immunity from a lawsuit brought by protesters hurt at 2016 rally.
By KENNETH P. VOGEL 04/14/17 09:36 PM EDT
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Donald Trump’s lawyers in a Friday afternoon federal court filing argued that he cannot be sued for inciting his supporters to hurt protesters because, as the president, he is immune from civil lawsuits.

The lawsuit was brought by three protesters who allege they were roughed up and ejected by Trump supporters from a March 2016 campaign rally in Louisville, Kentucky, after Trump barked from the stage “get 'em out of here!”


The lawsuit seeks damages from two Trump supporters who confronted the protesters, as well as Trump’s presidential campaign and the president himself, since the protesters argue the Trump supporters were acting at his direction.

In Friday’s filing, the president’s lawyers contend that Trump was not ordering his supporters to rough up the protesters — or to do anything. “The Trump Defendants deny that Mr. Trump directed his statement to the crowd,” the lawyers wrote.

But their claim was undermined by a separate Friday filing from one of the Trump supporters, Alvin Bamberger, a member of the Korean War Veterans Association who was captured on video pushing the lead plaintiff, a young African-American woman named Kashiya Nwanguma.

While Bamberger’s lawyers in their filing said their client “admits only that he touched a woman,” he “denies that he assaulted that woman.”

But, Bamberger’s lawyers stressed that “to the extent that Bamberger acted, he did so in response to — and inspired by — Trump and/or the Trump Campaign’s urging to remove the protesters.”

They added that Bamberger “had no prior intention to act as he did” and “would not have acted as he did without Trump and/or the Trump Campaign’s specific urging and inspiration.”

As such, Bamberger’s lawyers argue, if there is a monetary judgment against Bamberger, Trump or his campaign should be forced to bear the cost of it.

Bamberger’s argument seems to buttress the protesters’ claim that Trump was whipping up his supporters to act against the protesters.

One of the protesters, Henry Brousseau, said in an interview that it seemed obvious from the context “that (Trump) was speaking to the crowd when he said ‘get ‘em out of here’.”

Brousseau — who alleges that he was punched in the stomach by Trump supporters after shouting “Black Lives Matter” — said Trump “was trying to egg on the crowd.”

A second Trump supporter named in Brousseau’s suit is a well-known white nationalist.

Trump’s campaign rallies were often feisty affairs interrupted by protesters who drew the ire of his supporters and were usually ushered out — sometimes roughly — by Trump’s private security force.

But the Louisville lawsuit is one of at least two winding their way through federal courts brought by protesters who allege they were roughed up by Trump supporters.

Trump’s lead lawyer in the Louisville case did not respond to a request for comment.

But in the Friday filing, he pointed out that the then-candidate also said “don’t hurt them,” when discussing the protesters, and contended that the command “get ‘em out of here” was protected by the First Amendment.

But the federal judge hearing the case in a ruling late last month rejected the Trump team’s argument that the candidate’s constitutional free speech rights protected him from the lawsuit and that he didn’t intend for his supporters to use force.

Trump’s “get ‘em out of here” comment, the judge ruled, was “stated in the imperative; it was an order, an instruction, a command.”

The judge also rejected requests to toss out the case because the protesters assumed the risk of injury by going to the rally to protest. “The doctrine of assumption of the risk was abolished in Kentucky decades ago,” he wrote.

The immunity claim is a new one in this case, but it follows other efforts by Trump’s lawyers to invoke the argument against separate civil cases stemming from allegations against Trump dating from before he was sworn in as president.

“Mr. Trump is immune from suit because he is President of the United States,” the lawyers wrote in the filing, which requests a jury trial.


questionmylegitimacy.jpg

Originally Posted by Guest

The president’s lawyers claim immunity from a lawsuit brought by protesters hurt at 2016 rally.
By KENNETH P. VOGEL 04/14/17 09:36 PM EDT
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Donald Trump’s lawyers in a Friday afternoon federal court filing argued that he cannot be sued for inciting his supporters to hurt protesters because, as the president, he is immune from civil lawsuits.

The lawsuit was brought by three protesters who allege they were roughed up and ejected by Trump supporters from a March 2016 campaign rally in Louisville, Kentucky, after Trump barked from the stage “get 'em out of here!”


The lawsuit seeks damages from two Trump supporters who confronted the protesters, as well as Trump’s presidential campaign and the president himself, since the protesters argue the Trump supporters were acting at his direction.

In Friday’s filing, the president’s lawyers contend that Trump was not ordering his supporters to rough up the protesters — or to do anything. “The Trump Defendants deny that Mr. Trump directed his statement to the crowd,” the lawyers wrote.

But their claim was undermined by a separate Friday filing from one of the Trump supporters, Alvin Bamberger, a member of the Korean War Veterans Association who was captured on video pushing the lead plaintiff, a young African-American woman named Kashiya Nwanguma.

While Bamberger’s lawyers in their filing said their client “admits only that he touched a woman,” he “denies that he assaulted that woman.”

But, Bamberger’s lawyers stressed that “to the extent that Bamberger acted, he did so in response to — and inspired by — Trump and/or the Trump Campaign’s urging to remove the protesters.”

They added that Bamberger “had no prior intention to act as he did” and “would not have acted as he did without Trump and/or the Trump Campaign’s specific urging and inspiration.”

As such, Bamberger’s lawyers argue, if there is a monetary judgment against Bamberger, Trump or his campaign should be forced to bear the cost of it.

Bamberger’s argument seems to buttress the protesters’ claim that Trump was whipping up his supporters to act against the protesters.

One of the protesters, Henry Brousseau, said in an interview that it seemed obvious from the context “that (Trump) was speaking to the crowd when he said ‘get ‘em out of here’.”

Brousseau — who alleges that he was punched in the stomach by Trump supporters after shouting “Black Lives Matter” — said Trump “was trying to egg on the crowd.”

A second Trump supporter named in Brousseau’s suit is a well-known white nationalist.

Trump’s campaign rallies were often feisty affairs interrupted by protesters who drew the ire of his supporters and were usually ushered out — sometimes roughly — by Trump’s private security force.

But the Louisville lawsuit is one of at least two winding their way through federal courts brought by protesters who allege they were roughed up by Trump supporters.

Trump’s lead lawyer in the Louisville case did not respond to a request for comment.

But in the Friday filing, he pointed out that the then-candidate also said “don’t hurt them,” when discussing the protesters, and contended that the command “get ‘em out of here” was protected by the First Amendment.

But the federal judge hearing the case in a ruling late last month rejected the Trump team’s argument that the candidate’s constitutional free speech rights protected him from the lawsuit and that he didn’t intend for his supporters to use force.

Trump’s “get ‘em out of here” comment, the judge ruled, was “stated in the imperative; it was an order, an instruction, a command.”

The judge also rejected requests to toss out the case because the protesters assumed the risk of injury by going to the rally to protest. “The doctrine of assumption of the risk was abolished in Kentucky decades ago,” he wrote.

The immunity claim is a new one in this case, but it follows other efforts by Trump’s lawyers to invoke the argument against separate civil cases stemming from allegations against Trump dating from before he was sworn in as president.

“Mr. Trump is immune from suit because he is President of the United States,” the lawyers wrote in the filing, which requests a jury trial.


Attachment 67780

You have just posted several inflammatory and anger inciting posts.

I guess you don' t celebrate this day?

Boy - did you consider that Crooked Hillary and the DNC were outed for paying people to start violence at Trump rallies? You are not bothered by that ?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T337A using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Guest

Boy - did you consider that Crooked Hillary and the DNC were outed for paying people to start violence at Trump rallies? You are not bothered by that ?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T337A using Tapatalk

It's called freedom of speech to the left, including but not limited to violent acts against persons and destruction of property. If a conservative says anything that the left doesn't like, it becomes "hate speech" and they rush off to a safe room and demand that law enforcement (that they also protest against) incarcerate the offenders.

It might be better for Trump to deport the leftards and keep the illegals that wish to work toward making America Greater Again. Less costly to the taxpayer.

Originally Posted by Guest

You have just posted several inflammatory and anger inciting posts.

I guess you don' t celebrate this day?

Do you ever read your own posts ?

This morning, you condemned the left, a poster who was posting quite a bit of anti Trump.

Do those posts pass muster as someone who is celebrating this day ?

Someone explain to me how you can criticize strongly those who do not agree with your political view and be called a name and basically someone who does not celebrate Easter......who thinks so selfish like this ?

Originally Posted by Guest

Do you ever read your own posts ?

This morning, you condemned the left, a poster who was posting quite a bit of anti Trump.

Do those posts pass muster as someone who is celebrating this day ?

Someone explain to me how you can criticize strongly those who do not agree with your political view and be called a name and basically someone who does not celebrate Easter......who thinks so selfish like this ?

Bucco. You are complaining about me. I doubt I'll change.

Originally Posted by Guest

Bucco. You are complaining about me. I doubt I'll change.

That's fine...be whatever, BUT in that case...

Stop chastising and labeling everyone else. You begin preaching and judging and then you and Rubicon both get upset when your barbs and judgements are challenged by those you put down.

This is supposed to be an exchange of political and not somewhere where you two get to select the topic, and then judge posters.

If you insist on NOT discussing any issues, and calling out everyone and anyone who does not share your views, then stick with the main board.

You and your pal are not always right, actually less than 50% and offer nothing more than your PERSONAL judgements on posters, and large groups of people. You offer nothing else.

I apologize if I offend you, but it does anger me when someone is on here simply attacking others, or explaining in PERSONAL terms why they should be like you.

I really hate to be preached to, when I feel at least the equal if you two in understanding politics and world affairs.

Last I looked, you two are not in anyway in charge of this board, and until one of you offers something ACCURATE and of substance that you make case for, I will totally object.

The two of you simply preach as if we are beneath you and should learn from you.

I assure you, I can hold my own in a political discussion. Perhaps, instead of your judgements on folks, you should try and engage in one of those discussions. But continuing to act as if you two have a corner on wisdom, AND THAT YOU DO MANIFEST, will get a reaction from me, at least, every time.

Originally Posted by Guest

That's fine...be whatever, BUT in that case...

Stop chastising and labeling everyone else. You begin preaching and judging and then you and Rubicon both get upset when your barbs and judgements are challenged by those you put down.

This is supposed to be an exchange of political and not somewhere where you two get to select the topic, and then judge posters.

If you insist on NOT discussing any issues, and calling out everyone and anyone who does not share your views, then stick with the main board.

You and your pal are not always right, actually less than 50% and offer nothing more than your PERSONAL judgements on posters, and large groups of people. You offer nothing else.

I apologize if I offend you, but it does anger me when someone is on here simply attacking others, or explaining in PERSONAL terms why they should be like you.

I really hate to be preached to, when I feel at least the equal if you two in understanding politics and world affairs.

Last I looked, you two are not in anyway in charge of this board, and until one of you offers something ACCURATE and of substance that you make case for, I will totally object.

The two of you simply preach as if we are beneath you and should learn from you.

I assure you, I can hold my own in a political discussion. Perhaps, instead of your judgements on folks, you should try and engage in one of those discussions. But continuing to act as if you two have a corner on wisdom, AND THAT YOU DO MANIFEST, will get a reaction from me, at least, every time.

Take your own advice. I say you come to here to satisfy other than political beliefs. You have to be tough and be able to take others disagreeing with you if you enter this arena.

You don't have to be ugly, but you are allowed to gather information about what people think by gathering information as to how they ARE.

That scares the hell out of a lot of people. People don't want to be known, or understood. They want to shoot from behind their barriers.

Most of them do. On this forum. Few have much courage at all.

Originally Posted by Guest

Take your own advice. I say you come to here to satisfy other than political beliefs. You have to be tough and be able to take others disagreeing with you if you enter this arena.

You don't have to be ugly, but you are allowed to gather information about what people think by gathering information as to how they ARE.

That scares the hell out of a lot of people. People don't want to be known, or understood. They want to shoot from behind their barriers.

Most of them do. On this forum. Few have much courage at all.

You are absolutely incredible.

You lecture me on politics.

You lecture me on thick skin.

You lecture me....WOW is all I can say.

I have been deeply involved in politics for half a century...you know Nothing whatsoever.

You tell me I am UGLY, yet bypass your judgement all preaching.

Not sure what you mean by questioning my PERSONAL reasons for posting here, but you are getting a bit too personal.

I realize you seem to only read on here to protect Rubicon, or engage in personal chit chat. I did a number of posts explains in detail why I came back here to post.

It think you believe that you are owed something, and you are not.

I start threads on topics and issues....you ?

I am still wondering about your remark on courage..who it is aimed at, and what you mean, although by now should be used to your general condemnations and judgements.

Originally Posted by Rockface

You are absolutely incredible.

I start threads on topics and issues....you ?

The only threads you start are anti Trump...your not much different than Boy...except your not bright enough to figure out how to add an attachment.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk