Judge: Trump Incited Violence Against Protesters At Kentucky Rally

[Ms. Toad]

31. I just logged to add something like this.

Non-legal reporters pretty frequently get legal opinions wrong - especially when the opinion is about preliminarly dispositive rulings.

The court has to take all of the alleged facts as absolutely true - and evaluate whehter a jury, without completely ignoring the law, could find against the defendant based on those assumed-true facts.

That standard - which allows the case to survive -

Ignores whether the facts, as alleged are true or not

Ignores any defenses the other side may offer

Ignores the weight of the evidence

Essentially all the plaintiff had to do, in order to survive a motion to dismiss was to identify the legal claim (e.g. incitement to riot), and make up some facts that match each element of the claim. (If they were actually made up, the attorney would be in trouble - but the claim would still survive a motion to dismiss, becase the facts alleged have to be taken as true at this stage of the case.)

It is an extremely low bar. Motions to dismiss have such a low standard, that losing a motion to dismiss is more indicative of attorney incompetence than anything else - incompetence in bringing a case that is not supported at all by the law (one barred by statute because it was filed too late, for example) , incompetence in drafting a complaint that fails to allege an essential element of the claim (here, for example, if they had failed to recite any statements made by Trump that could actually incite violence), or incomptence in drafting a complaint without enough clarity as to what the claim is (e.g. I've seen claims that are just fat-dump rants against the other side ending in a claim for money, that never identify what it is - legally - they believe the defendant did wrong.)