(National Sentinel)Â Legally Liable: In recent days POTUS Donald Trump tweeted that he had an “interesting” but “very good” meeting withÂ New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger last week, in which the publisher later acknowledged in a subsequent statement.
Sulzberger said he accepted the president’s invitation to meet because he wanted to express his concerns about Trump’s criticism of his paper and the “fake news” media in general.
The TimesÂ reported:
InÂ a five-paragraph statement issued two hours after the tweet, Sulzberger said he had accepted Trumpâ€™s invitation for the July 20 meeting mainly to raise his concerns about the presidentâ€™s â€œdeeply troubling anti-press rhetoric.â€
â€œI told the president directly that I thought that his language was not just divisive but increasingly dangerous,â€ said Sulzberger, who became publisher of The Times on Jan. 1.
â€œI told him that although the phrase â€˜fake newsâ€™ is untrue and harmful, I am far more concerned about his labeling journalists â€˜the enemy of the people,’â€ Sulzberger continued. â€œI warned that this inflammatory language is contributing to a rise in threats against journalists and will lead to violence.â€
This is particularly true overseas, Sulzberger said, where governments are using Trumpâ€™s words as a pretext to crack down on journalists. He said he warned the president that his attacks were â€œputting lives at riskâ€ and â€œundermining the democratic ideals of our nation.â€
But does SulzbergerÂ really have a leg to stand on, given that there have beenÂ more than 500Â violent attacks so far onÂ Trump supportersÂ by many of the same people who side with the Times on its often false coverage of the president?
No, he really doesn’t. And you know who else thinks so?
TheÂ Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
On Friday the court said a lawsuit filed by 20 supporters of POTUS Trump who wereÂ violently assaulted and attacked during a 2016 rally in San Jose, Calif., can proceed against the city’s police department forÂ doing nothing while plaintiffs were beaten by angry Left-wing mobs.
AsÂ Fox News noted:
The suit’s 20 plaintiffs claim in a lawsuit that police knowingly ordered them to leave through an exit where protesters were waiting, despite the existence of a safer route and other exits, theÂ San Francisco ChronicleÂ reported last week.
The plaintiff’s said they were beaten or struck by objects thrown by the protesters. Initial accounts of the events also said at least one woman was pelted by an egg after a crowd of demonstrators surrounded her, as seen in video of the incident.
One plaintiff claims an officer told her police had been instructed not to intervene in the melee.
The court saidÂ if the allegations are true, â€œthe officers acted with deliberate indifference to a known and obvious dangerâ€ and thus violated the constitutional rights of Trump supporters.
Police officials defended officers, but the usually very liberal Ninth Circuit appeals court disagreed –Â unanimously.
â€œThe attendees allege the officers shepherded them into a violent crowd of protesters and actively prevented them from reaching safety,â€ Judge Dorothy Nelson saidÂ in the 3-0 rulingÂ that upheld a lower court’s refusal to dismiss the suit. â€œThe officers continued to implement this plan even while witnessing the violence firsthand.â€
This is long overdue. TheÂ violence being regularly meted out to Trump supporters by perpetually angry Leftists is going to lead toÂ massive reprisals if the courts don’t intervene first.