Fake Fact Checkers claimed Trump promoted violence at his rally's. The omitted context was Hillary and the Democrats paid violent protestors to go to Trump Rally's and make scenes or beat people up. Trump basically said if his side defended themselves (hit them back), he'd pay their legal bills as a snark. Unprovoked assault and self-defense are different things legally.
~ Aristotle Sabouni
Created: 2018-10-19 |
There were DNC-funded disruptions of HIS events, by anti-Constitutional forces. (Free speech means you don't get to shout down and harass the other side's speakers). Riots are not protests.
After this happened repeatedly, and the Press had no problem with it. Trump said in his inelegant way that if one of his audience members punched a guy (who had assaulted other people first) or roughed them up on the way out, that Trump would pay their legal bills. It appeared to be a snarky joke, but hard to say.
The Fake News and Fake Fact Checkers omitted the context and claimed that Trump urged violence at his rallies without offering any of the context that Hillary and the DNC had not only urged it, but covertly funded it. (That's well documented). Trump was talking only in retaliation, inside his events, to those that were disrupting and assaulting his supporters first.
Defense against paid Antifa thugs isn't advocating for violence, and it isn't racist since the majority of them are white. In law and ethics, urging self-defense and counter-violence is not the same as assault and urging violence. Omitting that context is at best a lie of omission.
🔗 More
| |
| |
| |
🔗 Links
- https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-incitement-violence/
- http://abcnews.com.co/donald-trump-protester-speaks-out-i-was-paid-to-protest/
- http://www.infowars.com/soros-funded-moveon-org-takes-credit-for-violence-in-chicago/
- http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/trump-surge-freakout-anti-trump-violence-growing-rapidly/
