Why is the DoJ not taking Trump's threats of violence seriously?

[Marius25]

Trump posted another, even more blatant threat of violence on Truth Social last night, saying there will be "death and destruction" if he's indicted.

The Judge in the Jean Carroll rape trial is making the jury anonymous due to Trump's terrorist threats.

Yet it seems like the DoJ is just ignoring this. People have recently been arrested and convicted for inciting violence against public officials.

Why not Trump?

[Emile]

1. Encouraging and stirring up violent or unlawful behavior is

against the law.

[sagetea]

7. It's supposed to be, anyway.

Have a nagging feeling that it's become 'normalized'. So many threats have been 'Let it slide' that it is now become a habit, snd soon fade into normal.


sage

[MarineCombatEngineer]

2. So you have an inside track on what the DoJ is or isn't doing?

Do tell.

[Marius25]

6. Yes. The fact that he keeps doing it everyday

and has faced zero consequences for it.

[Wuddles440]

11. +1!

[MarineCombatEngineer]

12. So you do have an inside track on what the DoJ is or isn't doing.

Hmmm, very interesting.

[Disaffected]

22. Yes, it would seem he has become

too big to punish (too big to flail?).

[Laura PourMeADrink]

25. EXACTLY. Think if there was an actual result, consequences

meted out for trump, then the complaint that we don't know what DOJ is doing might be less laughable.

[Scrivener7]

71. We can see pretty clearly that they're not stopping him from making

these threats of violence.

We know this because we continue to hear him making them.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

74. There you go again, inserting facts!

[treestar]

76. you expect an immediate indictment on this too?

it just happened. Why would it be faster than the rest?

[Silent3]

10. Imagine if a democratic politician was saying the same sorts of things...

...stirring up violence against, say, the conservative justices who overturned Roe v. Wade.

I don't think we'd need a "inside track" to know what the DoJ would be doing about THAT.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

14. Imagine this, imagine that,

that's all anyone here is doing, is imagining or speculating.

[Marius25]

17. Nope, it's pretty easy to tell that the DoJ is worthless

[MarineCombatEngineer]

20. LOL,

then I guess because you say so, it must be true.

[Marius25]

23. They've done nothing to address domestic terrorism

[MarineCombatEngineer]

26. You must have missed the part where I said that because you say so,

it must be true.
Reading comprehension is your friend.

[Marius25]

27. You do realize we can see what DoJ does and doesn't do right?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

30. See post #26 for reference. nt

[Marius25]

35. How long are you going to keep pretending DoJ is doing something?

He's been getting away with this for years.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

37. How many threads are you going to start every day

slamming the DoJ for YOUR perceived lack of investigations?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[edisdead]

60. I applaud your energy and persistence.

I get real tired of reading the posts that state how nothing will be done, and watching them go unchallenged. There is an undercurrent of negativity posts here and at times I wonder if there is intent behind them.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

62. I can only speculate what the intent is,

but...............................

I find it fascinating that some here on DU seem to think they know for positive what's going on inside the DoJ and that there won't be any charges filed against Benedict Donald and his merry band of MAGAt's.

[treestar]

77. that's patently untrue

you have overgeneralized.

[Hekate]

66. Reeeeeeeely

[Silent3]

18. It's better than giving our "justice" system a benefit of the doubt...

...that it has never earned.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

21. So because you say so, it must be true.

[Silent3]

40. So your benefit of the doubt must be true?

What higher authority do you think your differing opinions derive from?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

59. I don't believe I said anything about benefit of doubt, but let me look.

Hmmm, I looked and can't find anywhere in this thread where I said anything about benefit of doubt.

Please don't put your words in my mouth, I've no idea where they've been.

[Silent3]

64. If you're arguing against anyone who expresses doubt or cynicism about how well the DoJ...

...and other American legal institutions are doing dealing with high-level 1/6 insurrectionists, complete with snide comments like "Oh, you must have inside info, huh?", that IS arguing for giving the American legal system the benefit of the doubt (whether you use those explicit words or not) in regard to anything that's happening out of the public eye.

Besides, I already have reason to doubt our system based on what is known: Trump is not in jail yet. None of his inner circle are in jail yet.

A proper response to A FUCKING INSURRECTION would be to maximally accelerate all legal processes (and no, that doesn't not mean flushing all due process and rights of the accused down the drain) and maximize allocation of investigatory and prosecutorial resources to address that issue. It might mean employing THE PERFECTLY LEGAL standard of deciding some people are too dangerous to remain free before trial.

These matters should not be proceeding at the same pace as a trademark dispute or an insider trading case working through the DoJ and the courts.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

67. So because you say so

hell, it must be true.

One more time, quit putting YOUR words in my mouth, I have zero idea where they've been.

[Silent3]

69. If you don't call what you're arguing for giving the DoJ the benefit of the doubt...

...what, pray tell, do you call it when you snidely challenge every doubt expressed about the quality of the work our justice system is doing?

It's not merely "because I say so". It's because I'm exercising a fully reasonable interpretation of the significance of your words and actions. If you disagree, be EXPLICIT and DETAILED about what I'm getting wrong, don't just lazily tell me I'm getting what you're saying wrong and nothing more.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

70. You must have missed the part where I said that because you say so,

then it must be true.
What part of that don't you understand?

I grow bored of this ridiculous conversation.

Have a great weekend.

[Silent3]

73. Clearly you "grow bored" when you are incapable of anything but snark...

...and get called out on your poor defense of your position.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

75. LOL,

If that what makes you sleep better at night, then have at it.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

92. Ok, this is my last post to you on this subject,

your defeatism is noted, you may have the last word, whatever it may be.
I mean this is all sincerely, have a great weekend.

[Silent3]

93. You can't even be bothered, giving this one last shot...

...to explain how what you've been doing isn't "giving the benefit of the doubt".

As for "defeatism", a certain amount of defeat has already happened. Would-be insurrectionists should be afraid that the law is going to come down on them like a ton of bricks, not a slow-motion flurry of paperwork. The possibility of creating that level of deterrence has already been lost.

I'm not one who confidently claims nothing will ever happen to Trump and his associates. But that shouldn't even be in doubt, and it often seems doubtful. We haven't, in over two years, taken enough action to ensure via the 14th Amendment that Trump can't become President again, something we're only protected from by the "wisdom" of the voters who were stupid enough to vote him into office once already.

[treestar]

79. it would not

other, more routine, boring crimes continue, and if there was a news article about them, or your favorite pundit happened onto one of them, you'd be yelling about those not getting enough attention, too.

[Silent3]

87. I have no record whatsoever of "yelling" for other legal issues to get more attention

We're talking about an existential threat to our democracy here. If the democracy goes, everything that is supposedly protected by careful, lethargic "justice" that puts the most effort into going after low-hanging fruit is gone.

I am far from being one of those Americans who believe that "crime is out of control", living in fear of crime (in general) not getting enough attention to protect me and make me feel safe.

The Republican slow-motion authoritarian coup is a real, not imagined, threat, which deserves special attention.

[treestar]

88. maybe not everyone at DOJ sees the existential

threat to democracy and thinks that is an exaggeration. This democracy is not so weak that it is threatened by what happened Jan. 6. And it would be weak if people were prosecuted on the spot and not given all the rights of defense in the constitution, which is what takes up a lot of the time. And the limits the constitution puts on investigation.

[Silent3]

91. If the personnel of the DoJ don't see an existential threat to our democracy...

...then you've given me all the reason in the world to doubt their efficacy.

Further, I don't believe that respecting constitutional rights requires a ponderous process that must drag out for months and years. If our system is set up such that this is what happens, then the system is badly broken.

[Ocelot II]

24. Except maybe for the thousand or so 1/6 defendants that have been successfully prosecuted

so far, with more pending? But they're just sitting around their offices at DoJ working on their tournament brackets and eating doughnuts, right?

[Marius25]

28. The majority of them got slaps on the wrist

[Emile]

31. and visits from house republicans.

[Ocelot II]

33. But they were prosecuted, right? And some of them were sentenced

to long prison terms. It's an enormous amount of work to prosecute a thousand people, regardless of the eventual outcome, which of course will depend on individual circumstances. They could have decided not to prosecute any of them, but they did. For each defendant a case had to be filed, court appearances had to be made, trials held or plea bargains discussed, sentencing guidelines considered, and all the considerable work involved in every single prosecution. If you haven't worked in the legal system you have no idea.

[treestar]

82. Exactly

they reduce it down to "slam dunk case" that is apparently akin to a kangaroo court if we think about it. They would scream loudly if such a procedure was applied to defendants they think worthy of rights.

[edisdead]

61. now where were those goal posts again???

I swear I just saw then over there.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

65. +100.

[treestar]

81. so you really think the entire justice system

is responsible for doing exactly what you want?

You deemed the punishments not enough for "the majority." You didn't sit through the trials or sentencing hearings. You probably don't even know what the sentences are for the various crimes.

The crime bills of the 90s (when everyone was afraid of crime, before discovering terrorism) made things much stricter, so much so that many a DUer has criticized Biden or whoever else signed off on it.

Now they aren't strict enough?

[Silent3]

39. My issues with our "justice" system are well illustrated by how the street rabble...

...are getting locked up, but Trump and his inner circle remain free. And no, I don't buy that this had to be done in that order, and I'd rather the effort put into investigating and prosecuting a hundred of the peons have been focused on just a few of the far more dangerous and consequential inner circle.

[Ocelot II]

47. Well, apparently you know how it works.

Maybe you should apply for a job with DoJ, show them how it's done.

[Silent3]

53. Where does this constant refrain of "you must have inside info" or "you must be an expert"....

…come from?

I asked many times, and never ONCE been given a good explanation why faith and optimism in our justice system requires no special knowledge or training, but doubt and distrust can only be justified by special knowledge.

Have a go a it. Explain this recurrent theme.

And please, account for all the politicians and lawyers who share my doubts and who do have expertise and the possibility of inside knowledge.

[Ocelot II]

55. The burden of proof is on the person making an assertion.

If someone believes a thing to be true, they should be able to back up their belief with facts. I have seen plenty of evidence that many things are, in fact, happening. Just now Judge Howell ordered the testimony of Meadows, Ratcliffe, O'Brien, Cucinelli, and Trump aides Stephen Miller, Dan Scavino, Nick Luna and John McEntee. That's pretty solid evidence that DoJ is doing a very big something.

If there is solid evidence that nothing is happening and that DoJ is just sitting on its collective ass eating doughnuts - not just the fact that things are not happening on a particular schedule - I'd like to see it.

[Silent3]

56. Trump and his cronies are still free

That is a fact.

Being optimistic or pessimistic that this will change are equally assertions, with no definitive null hypothesis. My pessimism does not constitute an assertion "that DoJ is just sitting on its collective ass eating doughnuts", as there are many things, even very active and industrious things (such as misdirected effort) can result in a bad outcome.

I am only responsible for my direct assertions, not for your poorly-reasoned straw-man implied assertions.

[treestar]

84. no one is asking you to have faith

but to have automatic doubts because it does not go as you expect is just as unreasonable. And informing yourself before jumping to conclusions might be reasonable. Many people have explained the process and it's not a snapping of fingers. And it won't always turn out how each individual wants in every case they happen to come across.

You can't expect your expectations to be met by something you don't have half an idea of. It's not a TV show. It's not the carrying out of your will as dictator. It's not the automatic conviction and life imprisonment of the right people, those you don't like. Not ever prosecution of someone you do like is corrupt.

[Silent3]

89. What, pray tell, do you think I need to be informed of...

...before jumping to supposed conclusions? Which "conclusions" have I made?

I do not give the DoJ and other parts of our legal system the benefit of the doubt that they are acting courageously and with sufficient vigor to protect our democracy. That is not a "conclusion" that I assert as absolute fact, that is simply how I view the situation until proven otherwise.

You call my position "unreasonable". I would call your stance "complacent".

[Hekate]

80. I read there's another 1,000 in the pipeline, which sounds pretty good to me

[treestar]

78. from you

not the country or the world in general.

Not everyone expects to be entertained by it.

[C_U_L8R]

3. It will come back to bite him at sentencing.

Quite a record of being an awful person. And threatening judges is just stupid.

[bucolic_frolic]

4. Cheer up. More crimes every day mean more charges later. Let the perps run wild. /nt

[Ocelot II]

5. How do you know they aren't? They aren't about to announce their security measures

to the whole world, for reasons I should think are obvious.

[LakeArenal]

16. Lots of people seem to have an inside track....

“Seem” being the operative word…

We laughed at all the leaks from trump admin.

Now there aren’t any leaks and we get so much backstreet driving.

[2naSalit]

41. I think you have it right...

Leaks and breaking headlines were the norm for a few years now everybody is going through sensational story withdrawals.

[former9thward]

90. Every DOJ leaks when they want to.

The current DOJ has leaked all sorts of information and there are threads on DU talking about that information almost everyday.

[MineralMan]

8. Do you have some sort of inside source at the DOJ?

No? Then you don't know what the DOJ is doing, do you? So, asking why makes no sense.

[gab13by13]

9. We don't have laws in the US for hate speech,

other countries have them. Trump hasn't broken any laws.

[ananda]

15. Isn't this a lot more and worse than hate speech?

???

[Marius25]

19. Inciting violence is against the law

[inthewind21]

49. Yes

Go check out what the punishment for that misdemeanor is. Then prove the case.

[onenote]

51. And Trump's statements fall short of the Constitutional standard for incitement

It's claimed that others have been charged with incitement. I'd be interested in links that back up that claim and describe the facts underlying the charges.

[treestar]

86. whether a certain act meets that standard

is way more complicated than your opinion off the cuff.

[Zeitghost]

94. His statements

Do not pass the Brandenburg test.

[ananda]

13. I know what I think...

and it's about Merrick Garland.

[KPN]

29. He certainly does seem to get away with saying and writing things that the average American perhaps

would not. But so did/does MTG recently. I'm guessing it comes down to resources they have available to them for challenging an arrest or indictment. Making charges stick on apparent threats of violence is probably a lot harder when the potential defendant is able to employ a slew of lawyers to throw everything plus the kitchen sink indefinitely into their defense. The rest of us -- we gotta pay our bills.

[gab13by13]

32. Frank Figliusu said Trump hasn't broken the law,

We do not have laws against hate speech, there has to be a specific threat, a specific action called for.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

34. Yep,

and it has to be an imminent threat.

[Ocelot II]

38. Exactly. You can say all kinds of awful things and get away with it

as long as it doesn't constitute incitement per Brandenburg v. Ohio, which says that speech isn't protected by the First Amendment if it is both "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and is "likely to incite or produce such action." The "imminent lawless action" requirement is the problem. Making general statements about how violence is likely to happen if he's indicted is protected. If he said something like, "If I'm indicted I want my supporters to immediately storm the Manhattan D.A.'s office and capture and hang Alvin Bragg," that would not be protected. So far he's never crossed that line, though he's come very close. He's been getting awfully wound up lately, though, and he might decompensate enough to do it.

[hippywife]

36. Who says they aren't?

It's not like they keep everyone abreast of their investigations. You'd think people would have gotten over that by now.

[Marius25]

44. It doesn't require a multi- year investigation to address incitement of violence

[inthewind21]

50. So

EXACTLY how long does it take? I'll wait for your expert reply.

[treestar]

85. why should i take your word for that?

how many of those have you investigated?

How do you know this qualifies? There are questions of imminence here. Probably legal treatises of many pages and hundreds of footnotes have been written on this subject in law reviews across the nation over the years.

[Lettuce Be]

42. How do you know the DOJ is not taking his threats seriously?

[Marius25]

43. Because he's been doing it for years with no consequences

[Runningdawg]

45. EXACTLY I protested this SOB in NYC 45 years ago. He was born dirty.

[Zeitghost]

95. Then it should be easy

To quote a few that pass the Brandenburg Test, could you point us all in the direction of this unlawful speech? I have seen him say some awful shit, but nothing that has met the standard needed to make them criminal.

[gab13by13]

46. Alvin Bragg and Fani Willis

have amped up their security. Fani even provided bullet proof vests for her prosecutors.

No doubt the FBI is monitoring hate sites on the internet. The FBI isn't just sitting back and waiting until something happens.

[inthewind21]

48. How

do you know they aren't taking it seriously? Were you expecting a personal briefing?

[onenote]

52. "People have recently been arrested and convicted for inciting violence against public officials."

Links? There have been some cases of direct threats made against public officials, but Trump isn't directly threatening Bragg. Its a fine line, but one required by the Constitution.

[librechik]

54. Because a large.number in DOJ are Shitsters

And they throw sand in the eyes, wrenches in the machinery and turds in the punch bowl of everything Dems want to do.

[Marius25]

57. For those who claimed this wasn't an imminent threat...

Alvin Bragg has now received white powder and death threats in the mail based on Trump's statements against him. That proves Trump's words are stochastic terrorism and are resulting in imminent violence.

He needs to be arrested - he is not protected by the 1st Amendment for terrorism.

[Emile]

58. +1 spot on!

[Zeitghost]

96. When did he instruct people to do this

Remember the incitement has to be specific.

[Hekate]

63. Why do you think they are not?

[ecstatic]

68. They are prioritizing rethug tears over the safety of Americans.

They will be 100% responsible if anyone is harmed, whether by a mob of trumperists or a lone magaterrorist.

I could see if Jan 6 had not happened but he's done this before.

[Hekate]

72. Just for Perspective, a DU post from a couple of weeks ago. NOTE WATERGATE TIMELINE AT END

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217698774

Just for perspective: Watergate didn't happen with COVID, didn't have libraries full of evidence...

emptywheel @emptywheel 9h
Just for perspective: Watergate didn't happen with COVID, didn't have entire libraries full of evidence, didn't happen during era of encrypted apps, didn't feature 25 lawyer-witnesses, and didn't require immediate efforts to stave off a follow-up attack.

Peter Baker @peterbakernyt 9h
Just for perspective: The entire Watergate scandal, from the burglary to Nixon's resignation, took less time than the investigation into the Jan. 6 attack has now taken.


PeskyFact 🏴‍☠️🌻 @PeskyFact
Doesn’t even make sense to start counting from J6. For 2wks post, we had a skeleton “govt”…half of whom apparently spent the time deleting comms, etc.

Watergate to resignation: 782 days

Since Jan 20: 772 days

Since March 11 (Garland sworn in): 722 days

Peter sucks at this.

((((Tweet inserted, see at link))))

….aside from WaPo doing most of the investigating...

Jun '72
5 arrested trying to bug DNC at the Watergate

Jan '73:
5 burglars & Liddy & McCord Jr. convicted

Mar '74
Indictments come down for “Watergate Seven,” (WH co-conspirators) Mitchell, Haldeman and Ehrlichman

To compare: This DOJ is already in court with the Jan. 6 henchmen, prosecuting Proud Boys, & convicting Oath Keepers for sedition and interfering with the vote.

That's well in line with the less complex Watergate prosecutions, with Trump WH conspirators before the grand jury right now.

Petty and dishonest criticism of DOJ, at this point.

[Skittles]

83. rich white man

yup