>>> SO, IF YOU SEE SOMEBODY GETTING READY TO THROW A TOMATO,
KNOCK THE CRAP OUT OF THEM, WOULD YOU?
SERIOUSLY. [CHEERING AND APPLAUDING]
OKAY, JUST KNOCK THE HELL, I PROMISE YOU, I WILL PAY FOR THE
LEGAL FEES, I PROMISE. I PROMISE.
>> NOW, THAT WAS A TRUMP RALLY LAST YEAR SHOWING HOW CHARGED
THE ATMOSPHERE WAS. NOW PRESIDENT TRUMP IS BEING
BLAMED FOR INSPIRING VIOLENCE. IT STEMS FROM THIS RALLY IN
LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY LAST YEAR. YOU CAN SEE AN AN TIP-TRUMP
PROTESTER BEING PUSHED THROUGH THE CROWD.
THE MAN IN THE RED HAT WHITE NATIONALIST MATTHEW HIEN BACK,
AND THE MAN IN THE BLACK HAT, ALVIN BAM BERGER.
THE WOMAN ALLEGES THEY ASSAULTED HER ACCORDING TO DOCUMENTS
FILED. HE WAS RELYING ON TRUMP'S
AUTHORITY TO REMOVE PEOPLE. AND BAM BERGER SAID HE ACTED
WITH TRUMP'S, QUOTE, SPECIFIC URGING AND INSPIRATION.
>> GET THEM OUT. GET THEM OUT.
GET THEM OUT. GET THEM OUT.
LOOK WHO WE HAVE HERE, SOME WONDERFUL PEOPLE, AH.
GET OUT OF HERE. GET OUT.
GET OUT. GET OUT OF HERE.
[ CHANTING USA ] >> USA, USA.
WE HAVE ANOTHER WISE GUY. GO AHEAD.
GET THEM THE HELL OUT, GET THEM OUT.
OH, GET OUT OF HERE. GET OUT OF HERE.
LOOK AT THESE PEOPLE. GET OUT OF HERE.
GET OUT. OUT.
OUT. OUT.
GET OUT. >> THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYERS SAY
HE IS IMMUNE TO THIS LAWSUIT AS PRESIDENT.
ALAN DERS WITNESSES IS A LAW SCHOLAR EMERITUS.
NOW WE HAVE THIS FEDERAL CLAIM AGAINST THE PRESIDENT AND
OTHERS. TAKE ME THROUGH THIS.
>> WELL, FIRST OF ALL, DONALD TRUMP ALLUDES ON THE ISSUE OF
HIS IMMUNITY BECAUSE HE IS A SITTING PRESIDENT.
THEORETICALLY HE OUGHT TO WIN. I THINK THE CASE WAS WRONGLY
DECIDED BY THE SUPREME COURT, BUT IT WAS 9-0 IN THE POLL
AGAINST CLINTON CASE. HE HAD TO BE SUED AS SITTING
PRESIDENT. THE PROPER RULE WOULD BE YOU
DON'T HAVE IMMUNITY, BUT YOU CAN BE SUED ONLY AFTER THE
PRESIDENCY. THAT ISSUE HAS BEEN RESOLVED
9-0. HE WILL LOSE.
THE JUDGE ALSO RULED AGAINST HIM ON A MOTION TO DISMISS WHICH
MEANS HE MAY HAVE TO SIT DOWN FOR DISCOVERY.
BUT ULTIMATELY, I PREDICT HE WILL WIN THE CASE BECAUSE I
THINK THE FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTS THE SPEECH THAT HE
DELIVERED, EVEN THOUGH I THOROUGHLY DISAPPROVE OF WHAT HE
SAID. THE SPEECH HE ACTUALLY MADE ON
THE DAY THE VIOLENCE OCCURRED WAS NOT A DIRECT INCITEMENT TO
VIOLENCE. IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO BE
PROSECUTED OR EVEN SUED UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT, THERE HAS
TO BE VERY SPECIFIC INCITEMENT AND IT HAS TO -- THE VIOLENCE
HAS TO FOLLOW PRETTY MUCH IMMEDIATELY.
>> LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT THIS. IN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ASSAULT,
YOU DON'T HAVE TO TOUCH A PERSON.
YOU JUST HAVE TO HAVE THE APPARENT ABILITY TO DO SO.
I CAN'T ASSAULT YOU BECAUSE YOU'RE FAR AWAY FROM ME.
I CAN'T REACH AND TOUCH YOU. BUT IF SOMEONE WERE SITTING
RIGHT HERE IF I THREATENED TO ASSAULT THE PERSON AND DON'T DO
IT, I CAN BE GUILTY OF ASSAULT. IN THIS INSTANCE, PEOPLE TOUCHED
PEOPLE AND MOVED THEM OUT OF THERE.
SO, THAT IS AN UNWANTED TOUCHING.
SO, THAT WOULD BE AN ASSAULT. IF YOU ARE ENCOURAGING SOMEONE,
GET HIM OUT, ARE YOU NOT -- DON'T UP RUN THE RISK, I SHOULD
SAY, OF SOMEONE THINKING YOU ARE AN AIDER AND ABETTOR?
>> HE DO RUN THE RISK. IF IT WENT TO A JURY HE MIGHT
VERY WELL LOSE. I THINK THE COURT WILL KEEP IT
AWAY FROM THE JURY. IT'S INTERESTING, SOME YEARS AGO
I WROTE A BOOK ABOUT THOMAS JER ER JEFFERSON.
I FOUND A LETTER ABOUT THOMAS JEFFERSON WRITTEN LITERALLY ON
THE 21st ANNIVERSARY OF THE
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE IN WHICH THIS PRECISE ISSUE WAS
RAISED. A MINISTER SAID IF ANYBODY MAKES
A SPEECH URGING TO DO VIOLENCE AND THEY DO VIOLENCE THEY SHOULD
BE PROSECUTED. JEFFERSON WROTE A LETTER SAYING
NO, WE PROSECUTE THE PEOPLE WHO DO THE VIOLENCE, BUT NOT THE
PEOPLE WHO MAKE THE SPEECHES. WE DRAW THE LINE BETWEEN THE
ADVOCACY ON THE ONE HAND AND THE VIOLENCE ON THE OTHER HAND.
NOW, IMAGINE IF THE SITUATION WERE REVERSED.
IMAGINE IF THIS WAS AN OCCUPY WALL STREET EVENT AND SOME
EXTREME LEFTIST SAW SOMEBODY COME WITH, SAY, A NAZI FLAG OR
SOMETHING AND SAID GET THE FASCIST OUT OF HERE.
AND THEY PUSHED THEM OUT. IN THAT CASE THE ACLU WOULD BE
ALL OVER THIS CASE. THEY WOULD SAY, FIRST AMENDMENT,
RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH BECAUSE IT'S A LEFTIST WHO IS MAKING THE
SPEECH. BUT BECAUSE IT'S DONALD TRUMP,
WE HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING FROM THE ACLU ON THIS.
WE HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING FROM THE CIVIL LIBERTIES COMMUNITY.
YOU KNOW, THAT PUTS ME IN A TOUGH POSITION.
I WAS A HILLARY SUPPORTER, NOT A TRUMP SUPPORTER.
I'M A LIBERAL DEMOCRAT. BUT I BELIEVE STRONGLY IN A
BROAD INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
SO, I HAVE TO BE ON TRUMP'S SIDE ON THIS ISSUE.
I WISH MORE CIVIL LIBERTARIANS WOULD UNDERSTAND THE BROAD
IMPLICATIONS OF THIS. YOU HEAR ABOUT SHOUTING FIRE IN
THE THEATER. THAT'S THE DUMBEST THING JUS
ADVERTISING HOLMES EVER WROTE IN HIS CAREER.
SHOUTING FIRE IN A CROWDED THEATER IS THE EQUIVALENT OF
PULLING A FIRE ALARM, IT'S NOT SPEECH.
HERE YOU HAD SPEECH, LITERALLY SPEECH.
I THINK HE IS PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
>> LET ME BACK UP ONE MORE STEP. YOU HAVE THESE PROTESTS, THESE
RALLIES. OR EVEN THESE TOWN HALLS.
SOMEONE STANDS UP AND SCREAMS AND YELLS AT POLITICAL OPPONENT.
IS THAT -- LET ME CHANGE THE DISCUSSION A LITTLE BIT.
CAN THAT BE CONSIDERED TRESPASS? BECAUSE YOU'RE INVITED THERE TO
LISTEN, NOT TO OBSTRUCT AND TO YELL HORRIBLE THINGS.
>> IT DEPENDS ON WHETHER IT'S A PUBLIC EVENT.
THERE WAS A CASE JUST LIKE THAT IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
WHICH IS A PUBLIC UNIVERSITY. MICHAEL OREN, FORMER AMBASSADOR
OF ISRAEL CAME TO MAKE A SPEECH. STUDENTS JUSTICE FOR PALESTIE
DIDN'T WANT HIM TO SPEAK. THE ACLU CAME INTO THE CASE BUT
ON THE WRONG SIDE.
THEY CAME IN ON THE SIDE OF DISRUPTER.
THEY HAD A FREE SPEECH RIGHT TO DISRUPT THE SPEAKER RATHER THAN
THE RIGHT OF THE SPEAKER. IT IS BEING DEBATED MUCH TODAY.
IT IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT BECAUSE HERE YOU HAVE THE PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES. LOOK, HE SHOULDN'T HAVE MADE
THOSE STATEMENTS. AND IF THERE HAD BEEN VIOLENCE
FOLLOWING HIS EARLIER SPEECH WHERE HE SAID, YOU KNOW, PUNCH
THEM IN THE MOUTH, I'LL PAY YOUR LEGAL BILLS, THAT MIGHT HAVE
BEEN A CLOSER CASE. BUT YOU REALLY CAN'T LOOK BACK
AT A PRIOR SPEECH AND SAY, WELL, WEEKS LATER SOMEBODY ENGAGED IN
VIOLENCE BECAUSE THEY TOOK THE CURRENT SPEECH AND PUT IT IN THE
CONTEXT OF THE PREVIOUS SPEECH. THE FIRST AMENDMENT WON'T
PROTECT THAT AND, SO, I HOPE THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS
INTERPRETED BROADLY TO PROTECT DONALD TRUMP EVEN THOUGH I
DISAGREE WITH THE CONTENT OF TRUMP'S SPEECH AND THE MANNER IN
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét