It's better than that. These are criminal charges, so they're seeking his and Vance's arrest.

It's a sad indictment of the American legal system that people advocate for, and are excited at the prospect of, mere civil penalties for things that are actual crimes, not just torts. Why do we have so much trouble applying real consequences with teeth to people that actually deserve them?

These are criminal charges. The correct course of action isn't to sue them; it's to lock them the fuck up!

Sue them for everything they've got! Wait, a billion each would probably be better

These are criminal charges, which if successful (unlikely) would have more severe consequences for Trump and his couch-loving companion.

my only hope that the last flicker of consciousness in his brain as he dies will be an eternity of torment that he rightfully deserves.

our subconscious mind is our personal worst enemy and I truly hope his is just as monstrous and evil as his conscious mind; and when he has nobody else to torment, his mind will turn on him for a trillion lifetimes.

Yeah I hate to be a bummer hear (or maybe just a realist) but here’s just one more criminal and/or civil case in an endless list for which Trump will never see any kind of justice. Zzzz so tiring.

Sadly, same.

Some context from a mod at /r/law

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test

Selected Applications of the Brandenburg Test The Supreme Court in Hess v. Indiana (1973) applied the Brandenburg test to a case in which Gregory Hess, an Indiana University protester, said, “We’ll take the fucking street later (or again)." The Supreme Court ruled that Hess’s profanity was protected under the Brandenburg test, as the speech “amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time.” The Court held that “since there was no evidence, or rational inference from the import of the language, that his words were intended to produce, and likely to produce, imminent disorder, those words could not be punished by the State on the ground that they had a ‘tendency to lead to violence.’”

In NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co.(1982), Charles Evers threatened violence against those who refused to boycott white businesses. The Supreme Court applied the Brandenburg test and found that the speech was protected: “Strong and effective extemporaneous rhetoric cannot be nicely channeled in purely dulcet phrases. An advocate must be free to stimulate his audience with spontaneous and emotional appeals for unity and action in a common cause. When such appeals do not incite lawless action, they must be regarded as protected speech.”

Brandenburg Test:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test

The test determined that the government may prohibit speech advocating the use of force or crime if the speech satisfies both elements of the two-part test:

The speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” AND

The speech is “likely to incite or produce such action.”

I think it has been clear that Trump and Vance want people to take up arms and attack the Haitians.

He said this during a debate on national television:

You see what's happening with towns throughout the United States. You look at Springfield, Ohio. You look at Aurora in Colorado. They are taking over the towns. They're taking over buildings. They're going in violently. These are the people that she and Biden let into our country. And they're destroying our country. They're dangerous. They're at the highest level of criminality. And we have to get them out. We have to get them out fast. I created one of the greatest economies in the history of our country. I'll do it again and even better.

Wouldn't it be a slander case? As they are willfulling repeating lies, while showing that they know it's not true (JD saying they have to fabricate stories to get the media to listen)

Thanks, I was wondering. Generally speaking "pressing charges" isn't something private citizens do like is shown in movies, but I guess it is a thing in Ohio.