WOAH: Appeals Court Makes Ruling On Claims Trump "INCITED" Violence at Kentucky Rally

WOAH: Appeals Court Makes Ruling On Claims Trump “INCITED” Violence at Kentucky Rally

A federal appeals court on Tuesday made a ruling on the lawsuit that claimed President Trump incited a riot when he ordered three protesters to be removed from a rally in Kentucky, during the 2016 presidential campaign.

Back in 2016 Reuters initially reported the suit:

The three plaintiffs, all Louisville residents, claim they suffered physical injuries, emotional distress and humiliation, and are seeking unspecified damages, according to the lawsuit.

“Peaceful protest is an American tradition, especially in the context of presidential politics,” Dan Canon, the attorney for the plaintiffs, told Reuters in a Twitter message. “But what you see all over the country, time and time again, is violence employed against protesters at Trump campaign events. These plaintiffs are saying ‘enough is enough,’”

The lawsuit said Trump stopped his 30-minute speech five times to point out protesters and, in most cases, told supporters to “get ‘em out of here,” according to the lawsuit.

Fast forward to yesterday:

The 6 th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals which consists of a three-judge panel said: “the three demonstrators didn’t state a valid claim under state law and found Trump’s comments were protected by the First Amendment, since he “did not specifically advocate imminent lawless action.”

“In the ears of some supporters, Trump’s words may have had a tendency to elicit a physical response, in the event a disruptive protester refused to leave, but they did not specifically advocate such a response,” Judge David McKeague wrote in an opinion.

“As to how the offensive words were said, we know, most relevantly, by plaintiffs’ own allegations, that the words were accompanied by the admonition, ‘Don’t hurt ’em.’ That this undercuts the alleged violence-inciting sense of Trump’s words can hardly be denied.”

What are your thoughts? Did the lower appeals court get it right or was the lower court ruling justified? Let us know below.

Follow Chuck on Facebook