Weiss sent eight anonymous e-mails to the office account of Senator Mitch McConnell in 2018 and 2019. The case involves a series of e-mails sent by Weiss that threatened McConnell, including such messages as this:
If you push this for Friday, the resistance is coming to DC to slash your throat. You will die in the street by DC resistance motherfucker!!!!! You will not live to regret it!!!!!!
He also sent such messages as “The yelling resistance should have put a bullet in your head and then kill all the people you love! …”
Weiss is all too familiar in our age of rage. Many of us have been subjected to such threats against ourselves and our family. Weiss is a coward who hides behind anonymity to threaten and bully those with whom he disagrees. While some of us continue to defend the right of anonymity as critical to free speech, Weiss uses the protection to spread hateful and violent views.
Nevertheless, people like Weiss are often the price for free speech. That is what Judge Breyer struggled with in United States v. Weiss when he concluded that the e-mails were protected speech. In reaching that conclusion, he found that they did not qualify under the “true threats” exception. Breyer noted that the exception requires that it “would be understood by people hearing or reading it in context as a serious expression of an intent to kill or injure” another person.
Judge Breyer compared the case to United States v. Bagdasarian, where the Ninth Circuit reversed a defendant’s conviction for threatening to kill then-presidential candidate Barack Obama. The defendant made statements like “Obama fk the [nig**r], he will have a 50 cal in the head soon.” Those were deemed not to be true threats because they did not include an “explicit or implicit threat on the part of [the defendant] that he himself will kill or injure Obama.”
In applying this standard to Weiss, the district court found that it is similar to Bagdasarian as falling outside of the category of “true threats”:
Weiss’s comments were also steeped in “rage and frustration,” and they were indisputably violent. Nonetheless, read in context, the statements predicted that other people would hurt Senator McConnell, not that Weiss would. See, e.g., Opp’n Ex. A1 (stating, “You will die in the street by DC resistance motherfucker!!!!!” but not identifying himself as being part of the “DC resistance”); Opp’n Ex. A5 (stating, “The Kentucky Resistance is going to hang you by your pussy lips and punish you,” but not identifying himself as being part of “The Kentucky Resistance”); Opp’n Ex. A7 (stating, “The Kentucky Resistance says they are going to cut your throat from ear to ear and then your gook wife’s,” and using the word “they”); Opp’n Ex. A8 (stating, “… the Kentucky Resistance is going to totally execute you. They have stated youare a deadman! And soon. We are so glad to hear that they are finally going to take action. We cannot wait to know you are dead,” and using the word “they”). It is true that Senator McConnell’s staff considered some of these messages threatening. See, e.g., Opp’n Ex. A1 (“Please see below threats that came in through our online message system”). But just as the statement, “Obama fk the [ni**ar], he will have a 50 cal in the head soon” was not a true threat, see Bagdasarian, no reasonable jury could find that Weiss’s statements predicting that other people would harm Senator McConnell met the definition of true threats, see also New York ex rel. Spitzer v. Operation Rescue Nat’l, 273 F.3d 184, 196 (2d Cir. 2001) (“generally, a person who informs someone that he or she is in danger from a third party has not made a threat, even if the statement produces fear. This may be true even where a protestor tells the objects of protest that they are in danger and further indicates political support for the violent third parties.”)….
Judge Breyer also noted that the government’s indictment seemed to focus on an intent to harass rather than actually threaten Sen. McConnell:
Here, though the government asserted at the motion hearing that Weiss’s conduct meets the subjective test for a true threat, it provided no support for that assertion. In fact, the government asserts repeatedly in its briefing that Weiss had the intent to harass Senator McConnell, but never mentions an intent to threaten. See, e.g., Opp’n at 1 (“Defendant Howard Weiss is charged with the harassing use of a telecommunications device … with intent to harass U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell.”); id. (“From October 2018 through October 2019, defendant used his cell phone to send a total of eight emails to Senator McConnell … with the intent to harass Senator McConnell”); Opp’n at 20 (“the references to Senator McConnell are simply direct and circumstantial evidence of defendant’s intent to harass a specific person”), id. at 21 (arguing that the relevant intent was the intent to harass, not the intent to convey a political opinion).
The only evidence of Weiss’s intent that the Court is aware of comes from Weiss’s interview with law enforcement, in which he admitted to having an intent to harass the Senator, rather than to threaten him. He told law enforcement that he decided to harass Senator McConnell because the senator made political decisions with which he disagreed. He admitted that he used racial slurs in furtherance of his intent to harass the Senator, saying, “that’s just terrible harassment, that’s just anger and bullshit.”
Weiss’s words were violent and repugnant, as even he seems to have eventually understood. But because he did not convey that he himself would harm Senator McConnell, and the government has not identified any basis for concluding that Weiss intended to threaten, rather than harass, the Senator, the “true threat” exception does not apply.
A Ninth Circuit panel composed of Judges Richard Paez, Paul Watford, and Michelle Friedland reversed and found that the throat slashing emails could qualify as a true threat:
The district court erred in dismissing the indictment. It is “not clear” enough whether Weiss’s October 2, 2018 message was a true threat to be resolvable “as a matter of law.” Therefore, it is “appropriate to submit the issue, in the first instance, to [a] jury.”
Because section 223(a)(1)(C) criminalizes speech, it “must be interpreted with the commands of the First Amendment clearly in mind.” The First Amendment, however, does not protect “true threat[s].” True threats have both an objective and subjective element. To meet the objective prong, the court asks “whether a reasonable person would foresee that [his] statement would be interpreted by those to whom the maker communicates the statement as a serious expression of intent to harm or assault.” To meet the subjective prong, the court asks whether the speaker “mean[t] to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual.” If it is “not clear” whether a statement is “protected expression or [a] true threat[],” it is generally “appropriate to submit the issue, in the first instance, to [a] jury.”
A reasonable jury could find that a “reasonable person” in Weiss’s position would “foresee that [his October 2, 2018] statement would be interpreted by” the statement’s recipient “as a serious expression of intent to harm or assault.” While several aspects of Weiss’s message appear politically motivated and reference a third party, the “Resistance,” as carrying out the threatened violence against Senator McConnell, there are several factors on which a trier of fact could rely to find that Weiss’s statement was a true threat. Although Weiss “did not explicitly indicate that he was going to kill” Senator McConnell, he associated the sender of the message with the “Resistance” through the email address he provided [turtletheresistancewillbtherefritokillu@hotmail.com]. Weiss’s message was likely to engender a “fear of violence” by describing when and how the threat would be carried out.
And Weiss’s message was “privately communicated” to and “personally targeted” at Senator McConnell, rather than “publicly distributed” or addressed to a broader audience. See Planned Parenthood v. Am. Coalition of Life Activists (9th Cir. 2002) (observing that “a privately communicated threat is generally more likely to be taken seriously than a diffuse public one”). Weiss’s message was perceived as a threat by listeners, as demonstrated by Senator McConnell’s staff reporting the statement to law enforcement as a “threat[].” Although Weiss’s threatening statements in the October 2, 2018 message are conditional, we have recognized that conditional language is not “dispositive” in finding that speech is not a true threat, as “[m]ost” unprotected threats are conditional.
I have long objected to the loss of civility in our political discourse. Even law professors are now engaging in such reckless rhetoric. Indeed, I have specifically objected to law professors like Laurence Tribe attacking figures like McConnell in vulgar and juvenile attacks. However, I have never taken such irresponsible rhetoric as actual threats. So when Tribe said in 2018 “If you’re going to shoot [Trump] you’re going to have to shoot to kill,” it may have been inciteful but it was not indictable commentary.
Other academics have called for or defended violent acts. Nevertheless, in the past, I have defended extremist views on academic freedom grounds like those of University of Rhode Island professor Erik Loomis, who rationalized the murder of a conservative protester and said that he saw “nothing wrong” with such acts of violence. (Loomis also writes for the site “Lawyers, Guns, and Money.”) I also defended faculty who have made similarly disturbing comments on “detonating white people,” denouncing police, calling for Republicans to suffer, strangling police officers, celebrating the death of conservatives, calling for the killing of Trump supporters, supporting the murder of conservative protesters and other statements.
The question raised in the Weiss case is whether such threats sent directly to a single public official cross the line from reckless speech into criminal threats. I recognize that reasonable people can disagree on where to draw this line but the Ninth Circuit could represent a significant expansion of the exception — and, as a result, a significant limitation for free speech. Much of our political discourse is (unfortunately) expressed in violent terms. People often say “I want to kill that guy” or “I swear I am going to shoot the man” as a way of expressing their passion or anger.
In 1969, the Supreme Court ruled on the case of Robert Watts, a teenager facing the draft, who went to a Vietnam War protest and declared “if they ever make me carry a rifle, the first man I want in my sights is L.B.J..” He was charged under a 1917 statute prohibiting any person “knowingly and willfully * * * (making) any threat to take the life of or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States * * *.” In a per curiam 5-4 ruling, the Court treated the statement as “political hyperbole,” noting that “[t]he language of the political arena… is often vituperative, abusive, and inexact.”
Such statements are obviously magnified in seriousness when expressed directly to the person. However, I do not see the clear difference with the Bagdasarian case. Weiss is referring to third parties and the “resistance” in his hateful diatribe. There was no evidence of conduct supporting such an alleged criminal threat. My concern remains where to draw this line. As we often discuss, free speech requires bright lines to avoid the chilling effect of uncertain government action.
These messages should be the subject of investigation to determine if they constitute “true threats” and I commend the effort of the Justice Department in that respect. However, the Ninth Circuit opinion seems dangerously ambiguous on when such rhetoric crosses into the realm of criminality. The panel highlights how this standard turns on how words are received rather than intended:
A reasonable jury could find that a “reasonable person” in Weiss’s position would “foresee that [his October 2, 2018] statement would be interpreted by” the statement’s recipient “as a serious expression of intent to harm or assault.” Keyser, 704 F.3d at 638 (citation omitted).
The panel acknowledged that Weiss’ comments were politically motivated and referred to third parties, but emphasized other factors:
While several aspects of Weiss’s message appear politically motivated and reference a third party, the “Resistance,” as carrying out the threatened violence against Senator McConnell, there are several factors on which a trier of fact could rely to find that Weiss’s statement was a true threat. Although Weiss “did not explicitly indicate that he was going to kill” Senator McConnell, Hanna, 293 F.3d at 1088, he associated the sender of the message with the “Resistance” through the email address he provided. Weiss’s message was likely to engender a “fear of violence” by describing when and how the threat would be carried out. Black, 538 U.S. at 360 (citation omitted). And Weiss’s message was “privately communicated” to and “personally targeted” at Senator McConnell, rather than “publicly distributed” or addressed to a broader audience. Planned Parenthood, 290 F.3d at 1086 (observing that “a privately communicated threat is generally more likely to be taken seriously than a diffuse public one”). Weiss’s message was perceived as a threat by listeners, as demonstrated by Senator McConnell’s staff reporting the statement to law enforcement as a “threat[].” See Fogel v. Collins, 531 F.3d 824, 831 (9th Cir. 2008). Although Weiss’s threatening statements in the October 2, 2018 message are conditional, we have recognized that conditional language is not “dispositive” in finding that speech is not a true threat, as “[m]ost” unprotected threats are conditional. United States v. Sutcliffe, 505 F.3d 944, 961 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted)
I have been a long critic of speech regulations or crimes that turn on how words are interpreted by third parties as opposed to how they are intended. The Weiss case lacks any conduct indicating a true threat. Again, I view this as a difficult case but I fear that the Ninth Circuit creates more uncertainty as to what speech will be deemed criminal and what speech will be deemed political. Frankly, in light of the hateful views expressed to Sen. McConnell, I have no sympathy for Weiss. However, this opinion could prove to be a major expansion of the prosecution of political speech.
Here is the Ninth Circuit opinion: United States v. Weiss
Social event in DC the other day. Discussion about BLM otr Black Lives Matter. One guy is born in RC but his parents came over from Egypt. He says Egypt is in Africa and he is African American. His skin color is white.
The other guy was born in DC and says his ancestors were American slaves. He is light brown skinned. Egypt guy asked if his dad was a slave. No. Grandparents. No. Great grand parents. He didn’t know. Did he know the first and last name of any grand parents back (great, great be etc.). No. “Dad told me we were slaves.”
What state? Don’t know.
The conversation ended and brown guy says: “BLM!”
The Egypt guy says: “AAL Matter.”. I e African American Lives matter.
“If you’re going to shoot Trump you’re going to have to shoot to kill”
– Laurence Tribe, Harvard Law Professor May 23, 2018
While his comments are despicable, and worthy of termination, he used the third person which falls into the protected speech bucket. (Bagdasarian)
The rising heated rhetoric from both sides and the continued stoking of anger and rage over culture war issues and political divisions makes it more difficult to just sort of brush off those kinds of threats as either “true threats” or just “idle threats” made in anger.
With such heated rhetoric and the rampant spreading of baseless conspiracy theories and outright lying there’s always going to be more zealots who will act on such threats regardless of how any court views them based on context.
It’s difficult to draw the line as Turley mentions. But when the line is crossed it’s often when it’s too late. Turley mentioned an individual who threatened president Obama and was not convicted. However that person will forever be on a list of individuals who are flagged for extra scrutiny. They may end up on perpetual surveillance or just blacklisted from any events attended by the President.
There may not be any legal punishment, but certainly an exposure to constant government scrutiny.
I agree with most of the commenters and disagree with Professor Turley on this one. I don’t see the likelihood of a slippery slope on the First Amendment if people cannot send threatening emails with impunity. Weiss can still express his outrage at McConnell without suggesting potential violence against him if he pushes a particular legislative agenda. I wonder if Judge Breyer would have reached the same conclusion if he or his wife or child had been the target of similar emails. BTW, if Turley’s view prevails, doesn’t that open the door to witness intimidation? Now, that is a scary slippery slope!
@pbinca,
Unfortunately we live in an era where such rhetoric is actually followed through.
Remember Scalise getting shot multiple times during a baseball practice?
Post that event, these threats need to be taken seriously.
Now if someone said… lets drop a nuke on Brandon… is that a real threat? I mean… who has a nuclear weapon sitting in their back pocket? Or built one in their basement? So clearly not something that can be taken seriously. But using the other case… lets use a ‘.50 cal’ to take someone out… then you may have a more realistic threat.
Now some Democratic politiican or MSM type did attack the guy who said ‘Lets Go Brandon’ to Joe Biden… and claimed it was code for insurrection.
Now that’s over the top.
-G
It is both amazing and alarming how many commenters (apparently from a broad section of the political spectrum) insist on conditioning free speech rights according to whether or not the speaker agrees with their specific political positions. It is even more alarming when statements reflecting that kind of bias are from commenters who use pseudonyms that appear to lend support to other enshrined Constitutional rights. Obviously, the principal that the survival of free speech rights requires tolerance of speech which one may find repugnant is lost on such intellectual luminaries. In this particular case, I think that Turley and the original decision have the correct analysis. In regard to the proposal that a lower standard of intent be assumed when questionable speech is directed at a politician, I am uncertain that the converse should not be true. Holders of political office wield immense power over ordinary citizens. In many cases that power has not been granted or even acknowledged by those upon (against?) whom it is wielded, and it is not uncommon that the exercise of that power is incompatible with liberties reasonable to expect in a free society. Those who choose to seek that kind of power should do so in the certain knowledge that its exercise will create understandable resentment, even hate, from some of its recipients, and that some of those unwilling recipients may well react by castigating and villifying the officeholder, even to the point of making indirect, or even direct, threats against him or her. That comes as a natural part and parcel of the power. I don’t intend to suggest that a direct, credible, threat should be immune from prosecution, but that possibly more latitude, not less, should be granted when the person making the threat sees that action as his only recourse against power unjustly wielded against him by the politician or official. .
Grim squeaker: looking at your last few sentences, -and what would you say if a group of people took to heart Weiss’s words (as in the false calling out of “fire” in a crowded theater-the Schenk case), and were inspired and incited by Weiss’ words to act out violence against McConnell? Would Weiss be accountable? Would intent be relevant? (as in whether Weiss hoped to inspire others, or whether he was simply personally “venting”) -And compare that scenario with Trump’s words on January 6? Interested in your response…
sorry-this “anonymous” is from lin
Curious as to what words of Trump you wanted a comment on. Why don’t you provide the entire paragraph and explain what you are looking for. Trump wanted peaceful protesting, not the type of protesting done by Antifa and BLM that was called peaceful.
Maybe by focusing in on the actual words you will make yourself more understandable.
Please reread my hypothetical scenario and concomitant queries. I neither implicated nor defended Trump. Nor did I opine whether Weiss was culpable under the relevant statute, -which addresses abuse, threat, or harassment directed toward someone by telecommunications device. I believe this forum is intended to stimulate thought, discussion, and persuasive debate. That is what I attempted to stimulate: please note that I CREATED an expanded “what if” scenario NOT relating to the specific charge against Weiss.
Lin, I don’t doubt your good intentions, but I still find what you said confusing
Are taxpayers paying for this?
If someone threatens me I have to hire attorneys with my personal money to prosecute them.
Hey Mitch
“If you can’t stand the heat then get out of the kitchen”
President H.S. Truman
I can gather from this event. The threat to Kill McConnel, and the investigation launched by the FBI, that all of the intellegence gathered. All the communicaitons swept up, that not a single threat of violence preceded Jan 6
It’s Orwellian https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6408X6Z5lQ
That’s not true that “not a single threat of violence preceded Jan 6.” You’d know that if you bothered reading relevant indictments, guilty pleas, etc.: https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases
For example, here’s one guy who pleaded guilty to threatening ahead of time to put a bullet in Pelosi’s head:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/case-multi-defendant/file/1432141/download
No doubt you’ll run away from your false claim once again, as is your habit.
“could qualify as a true threat” “Could find”
I don’t trust conclusions based on the word “could”. I could find a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.
We have seen government overstep its bounds with politically motivated over-interpretation. We see government as an active player in plots convicting people of plots created by the FBI. We cannot afford to give the government more power to control the language through the threat of prosecution based on flimsy evidence.
This problem sounds like something that ‘could’ be resolved with a restraining order.
Would a severed Thoroughbred head found in a bed be considered a true threat? After all, no direct statement was made that any particular person would kill the owner of that bed.
I understand and agree with Professor Turley’s position that violent hyperbole is protected speech. Kathy Griffith wasn’t actually going to behead Donald Trump. Madonna did not have plastique explosives. Johnny Depp was not planning to actually assassinate Donald Trump. They were expressing glee at fantasizing over his death. Like a lot of the Left.
But if someone sent me an email from an address along the lines of the-group-who-will-kill-you@killersrus.com, with that rhetoric, I don’t know that I would bet the lives of my loved ones and me that it was just hyperbole. It would require an investigation to look at his digital footprint and private life, and mental health, to make that assessment. I don’t know what all they found on Weiss. What we do know so far should have lead to a mental health evaluation.
If this was a high school kid, and it was a school shooting rather than slitting the throat of McConnell, do you think it would have been considered a real threat?
So, you don’t believe in free speech….
Dave, I said “I understand and agree with Professor Turley’s position that violent hyperbole is protected speech.” My question is how to differentiate a true threat from hyperbole, especially if it’s your life on the line.
Asking, “does he mean it” is anyone’s reaction when threatened. Having had a violent stalker myself, years ago, I know this first hand. It feels like a gamble when you’re in it.
Part of this problem will always be to identify what legal “punishment” will effectively protect McConnell. We can always “draw the line” when free speech has caused an injury. Prison and money damages do that. But threats of violence do harm by forcing us to anticipate something that has not happened. We are forced to think of its “likelihood” and whether the target, and a jury, have the legal authority to take action. But what kind of action will solve this problem? The only truly reliable solution is to permanently deprive someone of the liberty to carry out the threat. At this point, I have no answer.
Having in the past to been the object of a true death threat (or three), it is very unnerving to say the least when you receive the duty to notice to call. NTL, the Court was correct to identify context (if I am understanding this correctly). Not sure if the email represented a true threat, but it did merit investigation. There is a fine line between drunken harassment and a true threat, and TBH, I don’t know what the line is. I want to say that we should err on the side of free speech, but the first time a public official is killed because of that, I’m not sure how this fractured and vengeful society would react. How many times can you cry wolf before it crosses the line?
One threat int he heat of the moment is one thing, but this case is another. Multiple explicit threats to him AND his entire family. It is insane that a judge would find this protected by the 1st, especially when so many “right wingers” are being jailed for “threats” to Dems. Any explicit threat to kill someone or family members should be met with a visit from the police in person, period end of story.
It’s advisable for all political figures to perceive all threats of violence as 100% credible, any other perception is being irresponsible and it doesn’t matter one bit how benign others choose to rationalize the threat.
The same can be said of any threats of violence against you or your family.
Take all threats of violence seriously.
The orders that Hitler issued were just words.
I can never forget the free-flowing, hateful rhetoric that led to the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. In Israel, there was a general sense of regret for having allowed the infowarfare directed at Rabin to reach the level of “traitor to Israel and the Jewish People”.
With social media a new tool for anonymous actors to incite violence, we especially need to rope off “remote control” avenues of fomenting violence. It’s going to take courage. It’s going to take steely resolve that every free citizen has responsibilities to use their voice in a positive manner, and that negative thinking cannot come to dominate the infosphere in a self-governing people.
The dorks message to McConnell are beyond the “pale”. Punishment should be to hang him from a cross with ropes so that his feet just touch the ground. Naked. Spray some honey on him. Throw shovels of fire ants on him and at his feet. Let the fire ants chow down. Allow him free speech to respond to the fire ants.
The 9th Circuit is saying that such borderline cases should be decided by a jury. The juries will decide what constitutes threatening speech.
I doubt juries are going to expand what is tolerated in terms of infowarfare terrorism (attempts to influence policy decisionmaking through violence or threats of violence). Odds are they will tamp it down.
When people like Weiss are thrown in prison by a jury for their fantasy-violence approach to persuasion, it will clear the way for more productive forms of interaction.
Juries are just ordinary citizens, and in this case, will fill in the details, case-by-case, of what is protected speech. If I were being threatened by mob inciters to deter me from my lawful enterprise and political involvement, I’f rather have a jury protecting me than JT.
He is too tolerant of the misanthropes and anarchists among us — he stands up for the least responsible voices airing their 6-year-old ids.
Ironic, because JT gets to argue in Courtroom settings with highly regulated rules of communication. I sense a bit of elitism — “lack of rules for thee, but not for me”.
Re defending such speech…..how would the Good Professor consider if it were he….not McConnell that Weiss had sent those messages to….citing Turley’s testimony at the Trump Impeachment Hearing when the Professor challenged the Democrats for Impeaching Trump?
First….sending an anonymous message with threats of death or maiming….should not be condoned, mitigated, or tolerated.
Second….any offering of violence, death, maiming…..should not be considered “free speech”.
The reason for both is by doing so….makes it impossible to determine whether such threats are valid and credible or not.
That alone assures the sender of success and deprives the target of any assurance of safety.
Bottom line….if you cannot play nice….you should not be allowed to play.
I would prosecute Weiss and everyone like him to the fullest extent of the Law.
When I hear I am a target of Black Radicals because of my white skin…..I do feel theatened which puts me in a situation where as a reasonable person….I begin to look over my shoulder and escalate my Situational Awareness around those who might be an instrument of that hateful and violent threat. That is why such language should not be “free”….it should come with a cost to the person making the threats and not just the target or society.
Gee what about Kevin McCarthy or other “upstanding” Republicans who have threatened their colleagues or the FOX host who urged his followers to give Fauci a “kill shot”. I guess is ok to threatened as long as the threatened official is a Democrat. If it’s Republican…it must be prosecuted. I get it.
You got that right Justice Holmes, the threats coming from the right is too many to number, but somehow Turley feels this one must be pointed out.
In other words, you are Howard Weiss, which surprises no one on here
It seems one fool is promoting another fool’s rhetoric.
How about Madonna blowing up the WH? How about Republicans actually getting shot by a Bernie Bro? Partisan hacks like Justice Holmes only see one side.
“their colleagues or the FOX host who urged his followers to give Fauci a “kill shot”
Those ignorant of the facts make statements that push the spinmeisters’ political desires. There is no factual basis for Holme’s misinterpretation of the words.
No physical harm was advocated or desired by the words “kill shot”, and for ignorant people to imply bodily injury was advocated make them look like fools. Without question, those two words meant something completely different from what is written in the comment above.
S. Meyer, for what it’s worth this is one of those ultra rare moments where I would be inclined to agree with you.
Here’s a quote that adds a little more context,
“ This is where you say Dr. Fauci you funded risky research at a sloppy Chinese lab. The same lab that sprung this pandemic on the world. You know what people don’t trust you, don’t you?” Watters said while speaking on stage at the event. “Boom. He is dead! His dead. He’s done. You do that 30 seconds, it’s all you need.”
Watters told the activists to “be respectful” and identify themselves before ambushing Fauci but also urged them to record the confrontation and send it to Fox News and other leading players in the conservative media ecosystem. ”
His rhetoric was indeed extreme in describing the intent behind the approach he suggested for Fauci’s critics. HOWEVER, just because it was referring to how to “ambush” him with these questions it doesn’t mean that some whacko zealot out there wouldn’t consider taking that suggestion seriously. There are a lot of nut jobs out there that really believe some of the more outlandish claims against Fauci.
Svelaz, your wish to play dumb or be dumb is your choice. You never bothered to listen to the video of Watter’s words. That is a characteristic of ignorance. Speak without knowledge and make an a$$ of yourself which you have done over and over again. Though you try to modify what you previously said, you keep making the same mistakes.
The question Watters wanted to be asked of Fauci on video was, “Why did you lie when you said that you didn’t fund gain of function research at the Wuhan lab?”
That video of Fauci trying to deflect from being forced to answer the question is known as the “kill shot”. “He is dead” refers to Fauci’s persona, not his physical well-being.
Made-up stories, errors and lies constitute most of your contributions to the blog.
That explains why you are known to most as the most ignorant poster on the blog.
S. Meyer, you moron. Re-read my post.
I AGREED with your point.
I looked at the video. I NEVER questioned or disputed what was to be asked about Fauci. In fact I ADDED a relevant quote SUPPORTING your point dumba$$! You stupidly brought up for no apparent reason a question nobody is having an issue with. PAY ATTENTION S. Meyer.
NOBODY IS DISPUTING WHAT THE INTENT BEHIND THE “AMBUSH” IS.
YOUR ENTIRE RESPONSE TO ME AGREEING ON YOUR POINT IS DEFINITELY AN EXAMPLE OF MAKING AN A$$ OF YOURSELF.
Svelaz, I know you had some agreement, but before passing the moron label to another, read what I said. “Though you try to modify what you previously said, you keep making the same mistakes.”
When correcting yourself, stay away from modifications to place what you previously said in a better light. If you had left out “it doesn’t mean that some whacko zealot out there wouldn’t consider taking that suggestion seriously.” then, perhaps, I could have accepted your change of heart. Unfortunately, you seem to lack recognition that whackos do bad things without anyone suggesting violent actions. In fact, your news media and heroes’ rhetoric precipitates violence. It would help if you had a broader perspective.
S. Meyer, no, the moron label still applies.
I didn’t modify anything. I just added my two cents to the opinion of why Fauci believes the rhetoric is dangerous. There are plenty of cases where zealots and nut jobs take such rhetoric seriously. Abortion doctors have been killed precisely because others make such comments even though they are unintentionally a threat.
You went off on a nonsensical insult after another trying to make up a narrative that had nothing to do with my response to you. You just took the opportunity to hurl insults.
Svelaz, you were initially wrong, and your correction included a modification that doesn’t elevate you from moron status.
“I just added my two cents to the opinion of why Fauci believes the rhetoric is dangerous. ”
If that were the case, it would behoove you to say something like Fauci believes, but you didn’t. You change your story continuously, always trying to resurrect the idea you can think. That is dumb. All you are doing is proving you can’t think.
We are not talking about abortion doctors. We are talking about getting a video that shows who Fauci is. That understanding might make some people violent because Fauci has played a part in the deaths around the world. What Fauci did might endanger Fauci, not what Watters said.
You are in a sorry state of mind, for I can see that you don’t know what you said or what you left out.
SM