Man Who Charged Trump on Stage Pleads Not Guilty
“Tommy was simply engaged in his mind, in political speech.”
Thomas DiMassimo, who rushed Donald Trump on stage at a recent rally, appeared in court this weekend and pleaded not guilty.
WDTN News reported:
DiMassimo pleads ‘not guilty’ in stage rush case
Thomas DiMassimo, the man accused of rushing the stage during Donald Trump’s rally in Vandalia pleaded not guilty to federal charges.
2 NEWS Investigates’ Natalie Tendall was in the courtroom Friday morning.
DiMassimo faces a possible maximum sentence of one year in prison, $100,000 in fines and one year of probation. The Judge allowed DiMassimo to go free until his next court appearance as long as he adheres to some rules. DiMassimo is not allowed to travel outside the southern district of Ohio, he must attend all court appearances and he must undergo a psychiatric evaluation if one is ordered by the Court.
Thomas DiMassimo winked at our cameras but didn’t have much to say as he walked into federal court Friday. His attorney did speak with us after court.
“It’s clear from our point of view that Tommy was simply engaged in his mind, in political speech. He was simply trying to make the point that he has political views and he wanted to be heard,” said attorney, Jon Paul Rion.
The Associated Press released this video report:
It’s interesting that the WDTN report says DiMassimo is “accused” of rushing Trump on stage.
After all, didn’t we see him do it?
Jim Hoft reported at The Gateway Pundit:
The video shows a man in a black shirt and pants leaping the barricade on stage right and rushing past two Secret Service agents. The man reached the back-center of the stage before being apprehended but not did not make it on stage.
Watch below:
That video has been viewed over 4,000,000 times.
Who do you think the judge is going to believe?
Featured image via YouTube.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
“… He was simply trying to make the point that he has political views and he wanted to be heard,”
And that is why we have the forum at LI …
I think his attorney should split the punishment with his client. That defense does not even pass the giggle test.
Yes, charging the stage is political speech, he identifies as black and a woman. Don’t worry, he is a clear thinking young man!
Bonus restroom privileges!
If he wants his political views to be heard, let him have his own damn rally. He has no “free speech” right to try and tackle somebody whose speech he disagrees with.
A dangerous man who pre-planned his illegal activity.
Jumping a waist high barrier is how he makes his political
view heard? Tell it to the judge.
This guy also apparently enjoys dragging and standing on American flags! A real piece of work.
From the picture his lawyer looks a lot like Cousin Eddie.
And offering a “Tommy-was-simply-engaged-in-his-mind-in-political-speech” excuse is dead-on Cousin Eddie type thinking.
☑ – Arrest
☑ – Prosecute
☐ – Convict
☐ – Jail
Well, he’s half-way to a proper resolution of this case so far. Don’t do the crime if you don’t want to do the time.
If there is a jury involved let’s hope for a quick conviction and that the judge sentences him to the max. This is not the first time Little Tommy has acted the ass.
Let’s make sure that anyone who wants to shut down free speech understands you go to jail.
I believe this is in Federal Court. Good luck trying to argue to the jury that this was free speech, I’m pretty sure the judge won’t let him.
Speaking Truth to Power is very easy until there are consequences.
To a leftist, the consequences are to be felt by the target of the leftist.
We are witnessing three operating principles of the left:
1) Facts are defined by the leftist not discovered.
2) Words are re-defined on the fly: violent actions are “free speech” as long as they are going in the “right” direction.
3) “Free speech” to a leftist means no accountability for the leftist. His behavior is the fault of the target (Trump) who should be held accountable for the leftist’s actions.
These people are less mature than a 12 year old child.
“2) Words are re-defined on the fly: violent actions are “free speech” as long as they are going in the “right” direction.”
Liberal violent actions are free speech, but the precise same liberals define free speech – like writing a candidate’s name in chalk at Emory – as a violent action.
‘Tis nuts.
In other political news Drudge has a link to a story say that Paul Ryan is about to recieve a primary challenge from a ( hopefully ) serious businessman.
Oh come on. If he had rushed Candidate Obama in the same way, what would have been the repercussions?
Laws are laws. Sorry, “kid.”
Naw, they would have described the man’s actions a result of his undying love for Obama.
As DanTheMan at Althouse put it, “Your free speech is violence, my violence is free speech.”.
Trump Derangement Syndrome takes many forms.
No, we don’t have to wait to find out whether a person intended to commit murder or only assault against a politician at a rally. Yes, the attorney knows very well that the defense is worthless, hence the “in his mind” part of his comments.
I think violence against a politician is a special hate crime against our country and our political system. There are people who have been encouraging this kind of violence for the past several decades, and their objective is to destroy our country by breaking our social compact. This is well known, and not limited to politicians. Bill Ayers, for one example, was present at the Trump rally in Chicago that was shut down, and at one time was very publicly thinking along the lines of killing 24 million Americans. Fortunately for us, his friends blew themselves up, and his followers at the time deserted him.
This is the secret of Donald Trump’s appeal, and the resilience of his support despite some of the worst possible publicity: people know that the violence is not coming from Donald Trump or his followers, and those who bother to watch his speeches know he is not encouraging violence. He might “try it on for size” at some point, and then follows up with a rejection of that course of action, because of the consequences. In another context, and from another politician, this would be called “reasoning.”
Donald Trump is/was not my favorite person or candidate. I do not trust him. But I trust outright, transparent liars even less.
Who is this tool/fool trying to convince? I don’t support Trump on any level, but to try to take over the podium of the person who has Secret Service protection is delusional, at best. He certainly has a right to speak, but no one has a obligation to listen.
The lawyer has to say something to get the fix started in the court. He can’t say, “my client is a doofus and pleads guilty, your Honor.”
The fix is in. Watch this one: it will disappear from the news, it will be continued and delayed a few times, and in the end, with no one watching, the Doofus will get away with a little court supervision.
Doofus will get the kind of consideration you’d never, ever get if you charged the stage of a Hilarity campaign rally “just to engage in political speech”.
“Tommy was simply engaged in his mind, in political speech.”
Isn’t that kinda like Hannibal Lechter thinking in his mind, he’s simply engaged in fine dining?
The guy is a semi-pro activist. The goal was press coverage and he got it.
I’m assuming the BLM folks who have repeatedly taken the stage at Bernie’s rallies and commandeered his microphone for their forked-tongue speech should be charged as well. They at least made it on stage and got some microphone time.
Not only are efforts to suppress the political speech of others not speech, but under the Lockean political theory on which this nation was founded, they constitute an act of war. Democracy is out alternative for way so trying to suppress a groups political rights to association and speech needed to effectively participate in our substitute for war removes the substitute for war and places relations between these groups back into the Lockean state of nature/war.
This is one of the most serious crimes that can be committed in a free society. It is a species of usurpation, which is the highest of all crimes. Morally it can justify the killing of those who are trying to suppress political rights (in the case where killing was NECESSARY in order to effectively defend rights). That wouldn’t be politic. People in this country largely understand the importance of political rights so the main effect of these attempts at suppression is to drive support for Trump. The last thing he wants to do is turn sympathies the other way by making the attackers look like victims. But this is the measure of how serious the crime is: the disruptors could justifiably be shot.
So it is very important that the courts get this right, and don’t end up affirming a political right to suppress the political rights of others. The best thing Trump could do here is sue MoveOn, Soros and the other deep-pockets leftists who are behind the organized efforts at disruption. Don’t let the other side define the issue in court. Trump could show himself a real leader by executing a carefully plotted legal strategy for vindicating the political rights of himself and his supporters, taking Soros et al. to the cleaners in the process. Win win.
Just to make explicit what most of us understand instinctively: yes, this was expressive activity, and the first amendment protects it. WHat that means is that the state can’t punish his actions for their expressive content. It can still punish them for what they were, and that is exactly what it will do.
In plainer English: the state may not treat this person differently than it would if he’d done the same thing to someone else out of support for Trump. The prosecution must be completely neutral to what he was “saying”, and deal only with how he “said” it.
In exactly the same way, if someone is expressing his political views on a residential street, with a bullhorn, at 3 in the morning, the first amendment says he must be arrested regardless of what he is saying; the state may not let him off if it agrees with him, nor may it treat him more harshly if it disagrees with him. What he said is protected; how he said it is not.
Nice
Itty bitty guy was scairt.
MSM was thrilled that some arab threw a shoe at President Bush. Couldn’t play that video enough times.
Yeah, it was always pretty flimsy for courts to say stripping is a freedom of speech thing.
Slipperly slopes make dopes.