(National Sentinel) Legally Liable: In recent days POTUS Donald Trump tweeted that he had an “interesting” but “very good” meeting with New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger last week, in which the publisher later acknowledged in a subsequent statement.

(Article republished from TheNationalSentinel.com)

Sulzberger said he accepted the president’s invitation to meet because he wanted to express his concerns about Trump’s criticism of his paper and the “fake news” media in general.

The Times reported:

In a five-paragraph statement issued two hours after the tweet, Sulzberger said he had accepted Trump’s invitation for the July 20 meeting mainly to raise his concerns about the president’s “deeply troubling anti-press rhetoric.”

“I told the president directly that I thought that his language was not just divisive but increasingly dangerous,” said Sulzberger, who became publisher of The Times on Jan. 1.

“I told him that although the phrase ‘fake news’ is untrue and harmful, I am far more concerned about his labeling journalists ‘the enemy of the people,’” Sulzberger continued. “I warned that this inflammatory language is contributing to a rise in threats against journalists and will lead to violence.”

This is particularly true overseas, Sulzberger said, where governments are using Trump’s words as a pretext to crack down on journalists. He said he warned the president that his attacks were “putting lives at risk” and “undermining the democratic ideals of our nation.”

But does Sulzberger really have a leg to stand on, given that there have been more than 500 violent attacks so far on Trump supporters by many of the same people who side with the Times on its often false coverage of the president?

No, he really doesn’t. And you know who else thinks so?

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

On Friday the court said a lawsuit filed by 20 supporters of POTUS Trump who were violently assaulted and attacked during a 2016 rally in San Jose, Calif., can proceed against the city’s police department for doing nothing while plaintiffs were beaten by angry Left-wing mobs.

As Fox News noted:

The suit’s 20 plaintiffs claim in a lawsuit that police knowingly ordered them to leave through an exit where protesters were waiting, despite the existence of a safer route and other exits, the San Francisco Chronicle reported last week.

The plaintiff’s said they were beaten or struck by objects thrown by the protesters. Initial accounts of the events also said at least one woman was pelted by an egg after a crowd of demonstrators surrounded her, as seen in video of the incident.

One plaintiff claims an officer told her police had been instructed not to intervene in the melee.

The court said if the allegations are true, “the officers acted with deliberate indifference to a known and obvious danger” and thus violated the constitutional rights of Trump supporters.

Police officials defended officers, but the usually very liberal Ninth Circuit appeals court disagreed — unanimously.

“The attendees allege the officers shepherded them into a violent crowd of protesters and actively prevented them from reaching safety,” Judge Dorothy Nelson said in the 3-0 ruling that upheld a lower court’s refusal to dismiss the suit. “The officers continued to implement this plan even while witnessing the violence firsthand.”

This is long overdue. The violence being regularly meted out to Trump supporters by perpetually angry Leftists is going to lead to massive reprisals if the courts don’t intervene first.

Read more at: TheNationalSentinel.com