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
Weiss sounds like a great guy who has some great ideas. Now, eat shit McConnell.
Ban for life – unnecessarily profane and in violation of the Civility Rule.
My fellow free citizens have done me more wrong than the government has. There should be another supplemental Constitution to protect me from them. There are pundits in the free press who want to censor you from saying “Let’s go, Brandon”. If the free press doesn’t want you to have freedom of expression, then why should they?
Don’t —- with the Constitution.
Sue for damages in the court system provided by the Constitution.
“Take” the “free press” for “public use” and operate it as a state-regulated monopoly utility, per the rights, freedoms, privileges and immunities provided by the Constitution.
“…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
The Constitution you have is the “perfect” in this “more perfect union.”
______________________________________________________
5 Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Maybe the best medicine in this case is to publicly and accurately label this speech as constitutionally SUBVERSIVE speech – which is a highly disloyal act for any American. This citizen doesn’t like the results of American constitutional due process, so he is attempting to intimidate a legislator using fear of violence. Loyal Americans – that oppose subversive activities – could instead use their First Amendment rights to promote constitutionally legal solutions. (Ie: he couldn’t threaten not to vote for him, etc). January 6 insurrectionists that attempted to subvert the constitutional due process of an election were highly disloyal and subversive – they should be viewed as such.
The U.S. Department of Justice has a long history of maintaining – a highly inaccurate – list of subversive organizations that don’t meet the constitutionally-subversive standard [“Prelude to McCarthyism, the making of a blacklist” by Robert Justin Goldstein 2006 published by the National Archives]. So even if the citizen in this case was truly subversive and disloyal to America’s model of government, in a private conservation, the federal government also overreacts and blacklists lesser threatening speech also. Lesser speech will be punished also.
The real danger here is we could criminalize anyone sitting in their own living room watching the nightly news NOT speaking publicly on Facebook/social media but anyone in their own house. The article above was a “private” venting. Many supporters of both parties do this in private with their least favorite politician (Democrat or Republican).
The First Amendment hasn’t been amended, it still legally restrains any government official – including Congress – from infringing on most forms of speech. Better to label this guy what he is – subversive.
What seems to be missed by everybody, including Professor Turley, is this was a reversal of a dismissal of an indictment. As I read it, the 9th basically said, “let it go to trial: and see what a jury says.” There’s no guarantee that Weiss gets founds guilty or innocent until the facts are provided to 12 individuals who are his peers, and they render a verdict. With all due respect to the good Professor, I think this is much ado about nothing.
With all due respect, how many hits does the kenb5602 blog get?
Rights and freedoms may be enjoyed.
Rights and freedoms may not be abused.
Death threats have never been accepted as free speech, which ta-ra-ra-Goon-di-A wrote this slop?
Freedom of speech is absolute.
If freedom of speech is not absolute, there is no freedom of speech; there is only a temporary granting of speech as decreed by a dictator.
Speech may constitute a criminal or civil transgression.
One must not incur property damage or bodily injury (inclusive of cranial contents).
One is wise not to abuse his freedom.
OT
“True Threats”
____________
“Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder.”
– Arnold J. Toynbee
________________
“the people are nothing but a great beast…
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value.”
– Alexander Hamilton
_________________
“[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union.”1
– Thomas Jefferson
________________
The “poor,” the illegal, the unassimilable, the hyphenated, the parasitic, and the dependent being allowed to vote, that’s the most deleterious of the “True Threats.”
State legislatures must again restrict the vote as the Founders did, and as the Founders intended for America.
Having once run for an elected office at the County level…..I am only too faimiliar with the American Voter…..and fully understand why our Republic is in such trouble.
Most are ignorant of the issues, do not understand how government functions, and far too many are incapable of using critical thinking in deciding how to vote.
Then there is the Good Ol’ Boy network that does not allow outsiders to win office and do everything possible to defame an opposing Candidate.
All politics is the same in that regard.
We saw how an alleged 84 Million people voted for a Candidate that we all knew was incompetent and unfit to hold the Office for which he was made the Party’s Candidate.
There is no better example of what is wrong with American Politics, the Media, and the ultra rich that have the money to inject into races in amounts that determine the outcome.
One Man alone donated 420 Million Dollars in the 2020 Election…..how does an ordinary Citizen compete with that kind of leverage over the system?
We do have one defense…. but should we use it the risk exists the very foundations of our system of government and its principles might be permanently destroyed.
Yet…if we do nothing….that very thing shall happen.
What do we do?
That you can criticize and caterwaul has no bearing.
11.6% was the turnout in 1788; the American Founders designed it to be such.
General Dwight D. Eisenhower presided over ~20 million men; not one of them voted for anything he did.
The American Founders took the power from the monarchical dictatorship and gave it to representatives who are elected by citizens who are entitled to vote in a republic.
Never was America designed or intended to be a one man, one vote democracy – which, inexorably, is bound for failure and dictatorship – the “dictatorship of the proletariat” of Karl Marx.
The right to vote must be severely restricted by state legislatures.
Certainly no one who receives a pay check, a welfare check or an entitlement check from the government should be allowed to vote – they will simply vote for a larger check.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“the people are nothing but a great beast…
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value.”
– Alexander Hamilton
That guy needs to be seeing a whole team of psychiatrists.
Talk about unhinged.
Putin must never be able to reconstitute the Soviet Union. Stalin was a monster.
Don’t worry so much about Putin & the Russian people so much. Those people have already had enough of City of London/JPM/Goldman Sachs Globalist Banking Trash & their plans for people.
Worry about these Evil Ahole leaders we have in the USA & your family. Think Nuremberg #2, some Charges already Filed.
Dr Fauci, Bill Gates, NIH, CDC, FDA, Piglosi, McConnell, Schumer, McCarthy, Pfizer/Maderni, J&J, JPM, etc., it’s demonstrable facts they are thousands of times more Evil the Dr Mengele & his Nazi leaders, Stalin, Mao, the Japanese virologist, etc.
Yet you people continue to not believe your lying eyes & follow your Bug Juice Cult Leaders.
That’s fine, just get on down there & get yourself & your kids their 4th or 5th jab of Dr Evil’s latest Bug Juice Boosters.
Here’s a bit of Dr Fauci’ Christmas Cheer for all lol;
******
It’s Beginning To Look A Lot Like Genocide
24,626 views
·
Dec 27, 2021
43
Share
Download
War Room With Owen Shroyer
War Room With Owen Shroyer
Get ready for a globalist sing-a-long!
https://www.banned.video/watch?id=61ca826cd7f5f63c315cbfa4
BTW, my post is Sarcasm.
So just still don’t get it.
Satan = Dragon = China
Dragon = Satan = China
I don’t care if Howard Weiss burns down McConnell’s house with McConnell in it. I care about this:
https://mobile.twitter.com/BonifaceOption/status/1475926968638001164
Go threaten the child or wife if a Mafia member. See what happens to you. Dead as toast.
I meant “of” a Mafia member
For the sake of argument, even if Crimea once belonged to Russia (given to Ukraine by Kruschev), does that mean it is OK for Russia to be an Indian giver? No, it does not. Since when does traditional ownership dictate actual legal ownership? What a dangerous precedent that would set!
1. Crimea was semi-autonomous. 2. The Crimeans did vote to return to Russia. No surprise as about 70% of the population is ethnic Russia. Online videos show a peaceful and free election held without Russian military at polls. You forget Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union when Crimea was added to Ukraine. Crimeans had no choice in in the USSR decision.
Whether one wishes to agree or not with international law, Crimea is presently an illegally occupied territory occupied by Russia.
(OT) Meanwhile, Turley continues his general silence about facts that continue to come out about Trump’s Big Lie, the Jan. 6 insurrection, and related efforts to prevent Biden from taking office after he was elected.
Some of the recent news:
“A former Trump White House official says he and right-wing provocateur Steve Bannon were actually behind the last-ditch coordinated effort by rogue Republicans in Congress to halt certification of the 2020 election results and keep President Donald Trump in power earlier this year, in a plan dubbed the “Green Bay Sweep.” In his recently published memoir, Peter Navarro, then-President Donald Trump’s trade advisor, details how he stayed in close contact with Bannon as they put the Green Bay Sweep in motion with help from members of Congress loyal to the cause. But in an interview last week with The Daily Beast, Navarro shed additional light on his role in the operation and their coordination with politicians like Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) and Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX). … their hope was to run the clock as long as possible to increase public pressure on then-Vice President Mike Pence to send the electoral votes back to six contested states, where Republican-led legislatures could try to overturn the results.”
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-advisor-peter-navarro-lays-out-how-he-and-steve-bannon-planned-to-overturn-bidens-electoral-win
What law is Pelosi going to write to fix this? What ever “this” is.II power the Jan 6 Democrat Only committee is working under
That is the only Article I power the Jan 6 committee is working from.
You’re a liar that it’s a “Democrat Only committee.” You know full well that Cheney and Kinzinger are Republicans. They just aren’t Trumpists. Feel free to call it the Non-Trumpist Only Committee. And before you complain again about the Committee composition, I’ll remind you that the House sent a bill to the Senate that would have given Republican and Democratic members of Congress equal control over the membership of a National Commission to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol Complex — congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3233/text — and the Senate Republicans filibustered it. Because of the Senate Republicans, there was no National Commission, and instead it’s only a House Select Committee with membership controlled by the Speaker. You keep running away from that fact. As for laws, there’s more than one, including possible revisions to the Electoral Count Act.
“When I see a bird that walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck.”
– James Whitcombe Riley, 1916
_________________________
“Jan. 6” was a clandestine false flag operation agitated into existence and perpetrated by agents provocateurs for the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) in America.
The “Jan. 6” committee is not dissimilar to the Warren Commission which produced the bestselling work of fiction, the Warren Report – Oswald didn’t kill JFK and fringe, dunce elements of the Trump rally were gullible and dumb enough to be incited and provoked by anarchists into riotous tumult in D.C. on Jan. 6.; nothing more, nothing less.
The “Jan. 6” committee exists to attempt to mitigate the looming disaster that is the coup d’etat revelation by Special Counsel John Durham.
As we see in the Whitmer kidnapping FBI hoax. Why has Ray Epps not been charged for for his part in J6? They need to release the 1400 hours of video and have trials as transparent as the Rittenhouse case. Would not hold my breath waiting for either of those to happen. So far not even those charged have been given access to the videos.
“They need to release . . .”
And to release the Jan.5/6 communications between Pelosi and the then-Sergeant at Arms. That officer, under the direction of Pelosi, is responsible for Capitol security. That includes any CHP requests for additional security, e.g., the National Guard.
What is Pelosi hiding?
You’re a liar that it’s a “Democrat Only committee.” You know full well that Cheney and Kinzinger are Republicans.
Pelosi hand picked the entire committee. Rejecting members picked by The Republican leader.
The committee is a fully directed Democrat committee.
What ever happened in the Senate has no influence of the House. That’s simple civics
So instead of admitting that you lied when you said that it’s a “Democrat Only committee,” you try to move the goalposts.
The ONLY reason it’s a House Select Committee is because Senate Republicans filibustered the bill to create a National Commission whose membership would have been equally controlled by Republicans and Democrats in BOTH chambers. The Senate Republicans chose to hand total control to Pelosi. You just can’t admit it. I bet you can’t even bring yourself to read the text of the National Commission bill. You’re a coward who can’t admit that the Senate Republicans f’d up.
Not a lie and the democrats knew it. The big lie is the Jan 6 “insurrection” that never happened but was an event instigated by the FBI and the democrats.
“A former Trump White House official says”
This is typical of Anonymous the Stupid. He has been wrong continuously and proven wrong over time by the weight of the evidence against the conclusions he makes. It’s always some type of anonymous official or high WH official, when, for all we know, that high official is the janitor standing on a ladder. That is all the proof ATS needs to pass on his lies and deception.
I’m tired of ATS repeating made up stories or stories that are meaningless.
Work on your reading skills idiot. They name the former Trump White House official, Peter Navarro, in the next sentence, and they cite a combination of quotes from his interview plus what he wrote in his newly published book. Should we call you S. Meyer the Idiot Troll, SMtIT for short?
You quote mostly spin from the Daily Beast that tries to change the narrative.
ATS, nNothing the interviewee did was illegal. What was implied comes from the Daily Beast, which used words like ‘rogue’ to frame the narrative in a seedy way. Nothing from you is honest. Tell us about the postings you made from anonymous sources about the Russia hoax, Steele Dossier, etc. You have a mountain of arguments from anonymous people where almost all were proven false. Perhaps you ought to read Navarro’s book so that you know what Navarro was saying. You are dishonest and deceitful. Your posts are worthless.
Which is why I and a million others turned up on Jan 6, to support the due process of rejecting the clearly fraudulent election results from those six states (and others) and send them back to the legislatures as is specified in The Constitution. That’s the reason we were there. Pence blew the opportunity. We went home. We did not foment insurrection. YOUR guys staged the little riot by a handful led by the FBI informants. Look, I’m a witness of actual rioting in Berkeley, CA, in the 70s when a student at UCB. I personally know the power of a crowd of 50K. Trust me, as a 1M+ person crowd if we would have wanted to we could have flattened the place. But we were peacefully protesting, violence is not our thing. We’ll be back and there will be hell to pay, trust me. The days are numbered for Fauci, Dasik, Collins, Wen, Cuomo, DeBlasio, Gupta, Gates (the mass-murderers) Frey, Brennan, Clapper, Talib, Cortez, Omar, Pressley, Pelosi, Schumer, Bush, Cheney, Raffensperger, Warnock, Ossoff, Reid, Maddow, Mitchell, Scarborough, Lemon, Acosta, Wallace, Zucker, Zuckerberg, Harris, the Bidens, the Clintons, Psaki, Millie, Foxx, Swaub, Soros, Newsome, Abrams, Elias, Lightfoot, just our short list.
There weren’t 1 million people there. I support your right to peacefully protest, but you’re deluded to believe Trump’s Big Lie, and what you and Trump wanted Pence to do is unconstitutional. Thankfully, Pence upheld his oath to the Constitution. Unfortunately, hundreds of other people broke laws: https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases
That you deny the crimes committed by these Trump supporters is consistent with your comment.
ATS, what you choose to forget is the collaboration of the left and the FBI. Ultimately, these are many of the same people involved in Governor Whitmer’s so-called kidnapping. The best thing that could happen for the FBI, in that case, is for the judge to throw out the case and cease embarrassing the FBI. We have more of the same on Jan 6 despite some foolish people getting caught up in a probable false-flag operation.
I base my thoughts on many things, including that the left and the FBI have been withholding crucial information. Garland refused to answer pertinent questions that eventually come out if certain cases come to trial. I think references to the Whitmer kidnapping plot prove the FBI is no longer acting solely as an investigative body. They are now creating criminal activities and have been doing so for quite a while.
https://www.ted.com/talks/trevor_aaronson_how_this_fbi_strategy_is_actually_creating_us_based_terrorists/transcript
How this FBI strategy is actually creating US-based terrorists
Free speech can be an early warning system. If we criminalize threatening speech, then we silence those that have no actual intent to do harm as well as those that do.
Yes, “fight like hell or you’re not going to have a country any more”, preceded by “it’s going to be wild”, and multiple-venue “Stop the Steal” rallies, calculated to rile up the faithful disciples into believing that somehow Trump’s “landslide victory” was stolen, based on absolutely nothing but Trump’s ego. How about “let’s hope Mike Pence does the right thing”–which, in Trump’s narcissistic mind, was to help him cheat to stay in office by refusing to accept validly votes. Then, somehow, despite Trump’s alleged calls for “peaceful protest”, the faithful erected a gallows, complete with a noose, and chanted “hang Mike Pence”. What were the disciples protesting, anyway? There wasn’t, and still isn’t, more than a year later, any proof of widespread voter fraud that could have affected the eleciton outcome. Freedom of speech? Free to lie to gullible people and incite them into violence because Trump’s a sore loser?
Idiot
+1000
5 states stopped counting. Trump was 100s of thousands of votes ahead of Joementia. Then all of a sudden the state’s started counting and Trump was behind. If you actually believe that election was fair your a complete fool and a moron. Democrats are just stupid people. America has become the laughing stock of the world with slow Joe and the hoe. We have the most corrupt govt on the planet.
Thank you FOXNEWS for that report, coming up next………
Haec res, i.e., Falneddie) se loquitor. You’re the complete full and moron! Verbis tuis damnatus!
No state stopped counting.
In the entire history of the US, no state has ever finished counting the votes for president on election night, as every state always has to count absentee ballots. In some presidential elections, it took weeks for states to finalize the vote counts.
Educate yourself instead of believing the garbage you posted.
Exactly.
Here’s quite a bit of documentation of the 2020 democrat voter fraud: https://thedissedent.page/2021/07/01/2020-presidential-election-fraud/
The democratics Blindness to Truth, Contortions of Fact, Turbulence of Thought reminds me of the Jim Jones massacre and his cult followers.
Plenty of proof. Total censorship of the discussion.
“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.”
**********************************
Sounds like the Ninth Circuit reads the newspapers, too, and isn’t buying the “mostly peaceful” riot mantra regardless of who is tossing the Molotovs – literally or figuratively.
Too bad but jurisprudence moves with the times and coarse times demand coarse rulings to all of our detriment.