An Ohio court has rejected a Haitian group’s request for arrest warrants against former President Donald Trump and J.D. Vance after they drew attention to concerns from citizens over Haitian migrants.
Trump and Vance have for weeks drawn attention to the plight of citizens in Springfield, Ohio, a once peaceful town that has been transformed into a dumping group for third-world immigrants. With help from the Biden Administration and the use of taxpayer funds, more than 20,000 migrants have been settled in the town since 2021, the majority of them coming from Haiti.
Residents have complained about pets and wild animals being eaten by the migrants, while car accidents have surged and enrollment in benefits from noncitizens has overrun local hospitals and schools.
In response to the Trump Campaign’s comments on the issue, Haitian Bridge Alliance, a nonprofit group representing Haitian migrants, filed a motion aimed at having both Trump and Vance charged with crimes over political speech. The group pointed to “threats” directed at the Haitian community when filing the complaint, pointing to a thoroughly debunked hoax that was traced to a foreign country.
“Their persistence and relentlessness, even in the face of the governor and the mayor saying this is false, that shows intent,” said the group’s attorney, Subodh Chandra of the Cleveland-based Chandra Law Firm. “It’s knowing, willful flouting of criminal law.”
An Ohio court referred the case to county prosecutors but rejected the group’s demand to issue arrest warrants.
The conclusion of whether the evidence and causation necessary for probable cause exists to commence a prosecution of the alleged offenses is best left in the investigatory hands of the prosecution,” the judges wrote in their decision, according to a report from the Springfield News-Sun.
The judges said particular consideration should be given to “the strong constitutional protections afforded to speech, and political speech in particular.”
“The presidential election is less than 35 days away. The issue of immigration is contentious,” the ruling states. “Due to the proximity of the election, and the contentiousness concerning the immigration policies of both candidates, the Court cannot automatically presume the good faith nature of the affidavits.”
While corporate media outlets and several politicians have claimed there is “no evidence” to support allegations of animals being killed and eaten, citing local law enforcement and government, a number of citizens have filed police reports about attacks on local wildlife and pets. Others have spoken out during town meetings and in chats with journalists about the severity of the problem.
