The leader of a nonprofit representing the Haitian community of Springfield, Ohio, filed criminal charges Tuesday against former President Donald Trump and his running mate, JD Vance, over the chaos and threats experienced by the city since Trump first spread false claims about legal immigrants there during a presidential debate.
The Haitian Bridge Alliance invoked its private-citizen right to file the charges in the wake of inaction by the local prosecutor, said their attorney, Subodh Chandra of the Cleveland-based Chandra Law Firm.
“Their persistence and relentlessness, even in the face of the governor and the mayor saying this is false, that shows intent,” Chandra said. “It’s knowing, willful flouting of criminal law.”
If only I thought any consequences would happen any time Trump ever faced them…
Sadly, same.
Yeah I hate to be a bummer hear (or maybe just a realist) but here’s just one more criminal and/or civil case in an endless list for which Trump will never see any kind of justice. Zzzz so tiring.
my only hope that the last flicker of consciousness in his brain as he dies will be an eternity of torment that he rightfully deserves.
our subconscious mind is our personal worst enemy and I truly hope his is just as monstrous and evil as his conscious mind; and when he has nobody else to torment, his mind will turn on him for a trillion lifetimes.
unfortunately, I don’t think that he actually believes in Christianity, because if he did, he would believe in hell and he would know that that’s where he’s going. Even though it’s all fairytale.
Finally. Defamation should make a comeback!
Any legal experts able to weigh in on the chances of this actually making any impact whatsoever?
Some context from a mod at /r/law
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test
Selected Applications of the Brandenburg Test The Supreme Court in Hess v. Indiana (1973) applied the Brandenburg test to a case in which Gregory Hess, an Indiana University protester, said, “We’ll take the fucking street later (or again)." The Supreme Court ruled that Hess’s profanity was protected under the Brandenburg test, as the speech “amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time.” The Court held that “since there was no evidence, or rational inference from the import of the language, that his words were intended to produce, and likely to produce, imminent disorder, those words could not be punished by the State on the ground that they had a ‘tendency to lead to violence.’”
In NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co.(1982), Charles Evers threatened violence against those who refused to boycott white businesses. The Supreme Court applied the Brandenburg test and found that the speech was protected: “Strong and effective extemporaneous rhetoric cannot be nicely channeled in purely dulcet phrases. An advocate must be free to stimulate his audience with spontaneous and emotional appeals for unity and action in a common cause. When such appeals do not incite lawless action, they must be regarded as protected speech.”
Brandenburg Test:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test
The test determined that the government may prohibit speech advocating the use of force or crime if the speech satisfies both elements of the two-part test:
The speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” AND
The speech is “likely to incite or produce such action.”
Also of note, this is a very high standard. The KKK regularly says the same kind of stuff that Vance and Trump said and get away with it
I wonder if all the schools and hospitals and government buildings having to close and/or evacuate due to bomb threats will be enough for the burden of proof. It’s not directly threatening language, but it certainly was a tangible, disruptive result.
Results are not relevant for proof unless they verbally requested that people call in bomb threats.
I don’t think that’s what the relevant case law shows. There’s no legal requirement for symmetry between the words uttered and the actions undertaken by others.
First, we know that because it doesn’t say that in the case law, and second because you can think of obvious examples where the speaker should be in trouble. If I yell at you to punch someone in the face and instead you kick them in the knee, probably I should be held accountable.
Forget symmetry, was there a relevant call to action in this case? An explicit call to action is definitely required for criminal liability…
Interesting! Thanks for doing the work on this!
In case anyone is unaware some places have private prosecution.
Ohio:
A private citizen having knowledge of the facts who seeks to cause an arrest or prosecution under this section may file an affidavit charging the offense committed with a reviewing official for the purpose of review to determine if a complaint should be filed by the prosecuting attorney or attorney charged by law with the prosecution of offenses in the court or before the magistrate.
Thanks, I was wondering. Generally speaking “pressing charges” isn’t something private citizens do like is shown in movies, but I guess it is a thing in Ohio.
Spicy.
It will be difficult to get this past the judge, because the First Amendment generally protects speech, even lies. Specifically inciting violence is not protected, but is this speech vague enough? My gut suggests it is, but we’ll see what the courts think.
If the courts OK the charges, there’s a passing chance that a jury could convict, because the effects are so clear and shocking. It’s easy to make a solid case.
Wouldn’t it be a slander case? As they are willfulling repeating lies, while showing that they know it’s not true (JD saying they have to fabricate stories to get the media to listen)
That’s a civil matter, not a criminal one.
I’ll be honest, I’m not versed in US laws. It’s called a citizen criminal case, isn’t that the same as civil? Or is that just unlucky phrasing for the uninformed like myself?
Criminal and civil courts are separate and have different rules. Civil is for something like if your landlord rips you off, a contract isn’t honored, or someone slanders you.
Criminal is like murder, fraud, etc. Not all criminal stuff is as serious as murder, but the burden of proof is higher and the penalties can be more severe (like jail time or even execution).
Unfortunately, time and time again the US Courts have found that Stochastic Terrorism is not illegal.
However, Trump has not done that, Trump has called them a violent existential threat, which seems like a more direct form of terrorism to me.
I think it has been clear that Trump and Vance want people to take up arms and attack the Haitians.
He said this during a debate on national television:
You see what’s happening with towns throughout the United States. You look at Springfield, Ohio. You look at Aurora in Colorado. They are taking over the towns. They’re taking over buildings. They’re going in violently. These are the people that she and Biden let into our country. And they’re destroying our country. They’re dangerous. They’re at the highest level of criminality. And we have to get them out. We have to get them out fast. I created one of the greatest economies in the history of our country. I’ll do it again and even better.
Nice. Sue them for a billion each.
Sue them for everything they’ve got! Wait, a billion each would probably be better
It’s better than that. These are criminal charges, so they’re seeking his and Vance’s arrest.
It’s a sad indictment of the American legal system that people advocate for, and are excited at the prospect of, mere civil penalties for things that are actual crimes, not just torts. Why do we have so much trouble applying real consequences with teeth to people that actually deserve them?
These are criminal charges. The correct course of action isn’t to sue them; it’s to lock them the fuck up!
Will the best option would be a criminal case and a civil case. Best part of a civil case is that it does not have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, just more likely than not.
Take their money AND lock them up.
Edit: corrected autocorrect
These are criminal charges, which if successful (unlikely) would have more severe consequences for Trump and his couch-loving companion.
What? Trump inciting violence with known lies? I have never heard of such a lie. He is a saint. Saint Trump!!!
