It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: yuppa
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: southbeach
a reply to: awareness10
People go to rallies to listen to the speaker not to listen to George Soros funded groups who are there to scream out nonsense at a rally they should not be at and are there just to disrupt and cause as much trouble as possible for a pretty dollar off the dirty old Nazi collaborator.
Soros also funds Hilary Clinton so that's a dirty trick being played making it look like it was all to do with Sanders and Trump whilst the Witch keeps her nose clean in the media.
Invitation was open.
Registration was online and free to anyone.
Tickets from online registration weren't even taken at the door.
Americans do have a right to attend public events.
Secret service was at event. It becomes a government sanctioned event and as such they could had seen hundreds of arrest. You have the right to attend a public event BUT NOT THE DISRUPTION OF SAID EVENT WHEN THE SS IS THERE.
Interesting that you use the term "SS" to refer to Trump's Secret Service detail ... apropos.
No, it's not a "government-sanctioned event" ... why don't you prove that to us?
The event was not "disrupted" ... when Trump cancelled it ... the animosity level rose between the protesters and the Trump faithful, and though many of you seem blind to it, there were altercations started on BOTH SIDES while the attendees were exiting.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: yuppa
Yet, that law doesn't make a Trump rally a "government-sanctioned event." That was your claim.
Perhaps you just aren't careful with words.
The protesters in Chicago, however were not there "illegally" as the event was open invitation, there were no altercations until after Trump cancelled the event, and even then, it was not one-sided.
And if I'm not mistaken, you criticized this Act back in 2012 as being unconstitutional, didn't you?
Your mind changed now?
(a)Whoever—
(1)knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so;
(2)knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions;
(3)knowingly, and with the intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds;
or (4) knowingly engages in any act of physical violence against any person or property in any restricted building or grounds;