[Sasparilla]

..Again, don’t argue with me. This is not something that is in question or doubt. ...

Don’t argue with me? Are you kidding. I have never read anything as condescending ever on FR, and it is in question and it is in doubt.

You might want to Google the US Attorney General’s manual for United States Attorneys on how they should handle 18USC section 1752 cases. I don’t care if you do or don’t though.

[UCANSEE2]

I find it entertaining when the FACTS (in writing) end up being posted just prior to your claims that those are not the facts.

[squidward]

Something even more simple is the charge of disorderly conduct. Often referred to in some states as disturbing the peace. Below is the Indiana definition:

(a) A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally:
(1) engages in fighting or in tumultuous conduct;
(2) makes unreasonable noise and continues to do so after being asked to stop; or
(3) disrupts a lawful assembly of persons;
commits disorderly conduct, a Class B misdemeanor

Low level crime, but it will send a message if the clowns inside the rallies who insist on being a distraction. Jail them and let them bond out after they get a shower.

[GLDNGUN]

Don’t argue with me? Are you kidding. I have never read anything as condescending ever on FR, and it is in question and it is in doubt.

You might want to Google the US Attorney General’s manual for United States Attorneys on how they should handle 18USC section 1752 cases. I don’t care if you do or don’t though.

First of all, take a chill pill, my friend. When I said "don't argue with me", I was saying I'm not the one to argue this with. This isn't an opinion of mine that I was sharing, it is the law, like it or not.

And then you tell me to go read something when evidently you didn't read what I posted.

If you had clicked on the link you would have read the words directly from president of Valdosta State University. Do you think he's some Trump supporter? Here's the money line from his letter:

"While this is disturbing, it should be remembered that this was not a VSU sponsored event, but a private function. The Trump campaign, together with the Secret Service and other law-enforcement officials, had responsibility for such decisions, not VSU. As we reminded the campus via email last Friday, current federal law (HR 347) does not allow for protesting of any type in an area under protection by the Secret Service."

As you can read for yourself, he is telling the students that the Secret Service were enforcing this law.

Furthermore, even liberal rags aren't disputing the law:

http://reason.com/blog/2016/03/03/protest-donald-trump-now-federal-crime
http://www.complex.com/life/2016/03/its-literally-illegal-to-protest-at-a-donald-trump-rally

Don't you think they would be somehow arguing that the law didn't apply here if they could? Even they aren't making that argument.

Again, I'm not going to argue with you about it. You can argue with all of these other people, starting with the Secret Service.

I don’t care if you do or don’t though.