ASPartOfMe wrote:
Oklahoma Supreme Court allows Trump rally to proceed as planned, as president says Tulsa curfew being liftedQuote:
The Oklahoma Supreme Court on Friday ruled that President Trump’s upcoming rally in Tulsa can go ahead as planned despite concerns about coronavirus -- just as Trump announced that a curfew in the city had been lifted for the rally.
“I just spoke to the highly respected Mayor of Tulsa, G.T. Bynum, who informed me there will be no curfew tonight or tomorrow for our many supporters attending the #MAGA Rally. Enjoy yourselves - thank you to Mayor Bynum!” the president tweeted.
Bynum, a Republican, had declared a civil emergency and announced a curfew near the arena where Trump plans to hold a campaign rally on Saturday.
Around the same time as his tweet, the state’s Supreme Court ruled against the request to force everyone attending to wear a mask and stay at least six feet apart from one another -- a policy that would have complicated the massive event with thousands of people.
The court ruled that the two local residents among those filing the suit couldn’t establish that they have a clear legal right to the relief they sought. In a concurring opinion, two justices wrote that the state’s reopening plan is “permissive, suggestive and discretionary.”
“Therefore, for lack of any mandatory language in the (plan), we are compelled to deny the relief requested,” that opinion said.
Earlier in the day, Trump pointedly warned “anarchists” and other “agitators” not to disrupt the rally.
“Any protesters, anarchists, agitators, looters or lowlifes who are going to Oklahoma please understand, you will not be treated like you have been in New York, Seattle, or Minneapolis,” Trump tweeted Friday. “It will be a much different scene.”
Trump does not have the power to lift a local curfew or order local law enforcement on how to treat rioters.
Maybe, based on reading the words in the article, you might have noticed that Mr Trump was informed that there was no curfew for the attendees...Not sure why you seem to imply that HE was the one giving the orders.
I also don't see anything indicating orders being given by him to "law enforcement officers"...A "warning" to those headed there to cause trouble, maybe (possibly based on information supplied to him BY the "law enforcement" from the area as to what they had planned).
I do wish people could stick to facts and not "summarise" or add their own biases to their "overview" where this contradicts the wording of the article which they refer to.
20 Jun 2020, 2:35 am
