Has there been ANY law enforcement reaction, at all, ...

[Think. Again.]

...to trump's public and blatant threat of his intention to cause nationwide "bloodbath" if he isn't elected?

Sure, they can bicker over whether his exact words communicated an clear threat, but that's really for the courts to decide as they consider his past actions involving Jan 6.

Can law enforcement do NOTHING now to protect the safety of citizens?

Edit to add: After a long day of discussion in this thread, with some responses that are surprising for DU members, I think this video from Glenn Kirschner answers my question;

https://m.

Thanks to Rhiannon12866 for this OP: https://democraticunderground.com/132216338

[gab13by13]

1. We do not have laws that deal with hate speech,

The threats have to be specific and actionable.

[Think. Again.]

3. Thank you, ....

...I don't want to confuse hate speech with communicating threats (two different topics), my question is ...doesn't law enforcement have some latitude when it comes to stopping a violent crime when it's intention is publicly announced beforehand?

[onenote]

17. Are they supposed to round up all Trump supporters?

Even a wannabe dictator still has first amendment rights. His blather, which is what it is, doesn't amount to incitement or a threat under the first amendment standards.

[paleotn]

22. Don't tempt us.

See Marcus Tullius Cicero and the Catilinarian Conspiracy to overthrow the Roman Republic. Is it necessary on rare occasions to seek extra judicial means in order to preserve rule of law and democracy? Cicero thought so.

Or we could go all idealist and run a much higher risk of losing forever what we hold dear. Idealists might feel they at least have a clean conscience.....while sitting in a concentration camp. In that case, what's the point of a clean conscience? Similarly, I wonder if there's some in Russia who wish they'd just wacked Putin when they had the chance. 20/20 hindsight, but still.

[onenote]

24. So tell me how this would work.

Would the administration order law enforcement to surround the next Trump rally and arrest everyone who attended it and charge them with something? And then lock them up somewhere. And if folks show up at another Trump rally, with or without him in attendance, do the same thing and the over and over until they no longer publicly profess their support for Trump.

Or is there some other "extra judicial means" you would support?

[paleotn]

28. No idea how that would work, but the question remains....

Are there times when we have to step outside the rule of law in order to protect rule of law? Or do we just ignore pragmatism completely, stay idealistic and run a much higher risk of losing everything? It's quite a conundrum.

Really, there's only a handful of people this might impact. Trump and some of his close circle. Leaderless movements often soon die. Particularly a movement like this, made up of people who want to be led and told what to think. Doubtful there's many with the chops to effectively pick up the reins.

[triron]

67. Well said.

Look what Neville Chamberlain accomplished with Hitler by 'being nice '.

[Metaphorical]

68. Hence the dilemma that the GOP is in

> Doubtful there's many with the chops to effectively pick up the reins.

Trump cut DeSantis off at the knees, and he was really the only GOP politician I could see that had any potential of picking up the MAGAT hordes. Abbot, possibly? Nikki Haley, in comparison, had to play to the MAGAT crowd, but she doesn't strike me as being authoritarian enough for the Horde.

The problem with arresting agitators is that it makes them martyrs. Putin may have made a big mistake in arresting then killing Navalny. He made Navalny a martyr and empowered Navalny's wife to become an opposition leader in exile. It's one reason that I think it unlikely that Trump will be found guilty and arrested before the election. It would make him a martyr, and for all that I think he's slipping into senescence, in many respects a senile Trump from prison would be a godsend to the GOP, as they can use the symbol of Trump the persecuted without actually having to bring the guy out in front of the camera - no more messes to clean up.

[yagotme]

164. "Are there times when we have to step outside the rule of law in order to protect rule of law?"

If you step outside the rule of law, to protect the rule of law, you gave just destroyed that which you wish to protect.

[Think. Again.]

29. That seems to be a very grand approach...

...to a rather mundane process.

People who are charged with communicating a threat are usually just arrested, charged, and booked.

[PufPuf23]

131. Local to me 4 days ago.

HCSO SAYS, ARCATA MAN ARRESTED ON CHARGES STEMMING FROM ONLINE THREATS AND ANTISEMITIC MESSAGES

Wednesday, 13 March 2024, 11:46 am Staff; RedheadBlackBelt

On Jan. 8, 2024, the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office received a call from an individual reporting he and his son had received several threatening and Anti-Semitic messages on social media.

Upon further investigation, it was determined that the messages were sent from 33-year-old Daniel Epperson. An arrest warrant was issued for Epperson on March 5, 2024.

https://kymkemp.com/2024/03/13/hcso-says-arcata-man-arrested-on-charges-stemming-from-online-threats-and-antisemitic-messages/

Pile of bullshit that Trump has not been arrested multiple times at this point.

We are being played because our government and society have so many imbedded that are complicit.

MSM grooms.

Perception is that we have already lost even if POTUS Biden is re-elected.

[Marthe48]

77. Surely we can rid ourselves of traitor

without going outside of our democratic system.
If traitor is disposed of, like head first, or feet first, I think there will be a power vacuum. It'll take awhile for rwnj to find someone as horrible as traitor. They have to find a pos that not only is venal, soulless, cruel, hateful, and wanton, but can attract the same flaws in a large number of rwnj with the same lack of character.

[Karadeniz]

100. Trump said the times require dropping the constitution, remember!

[WarGamer]

151. I wouldn't look to Republican Rome as a model...

And the irony is... Cicero ended up at room temperature with his hands and head displayed in the Forum.

By extrajudicial means.

[stopdiggin]

109. if there IS eminent and identifieable threat

Which multiple posters are trying to tell you does not exist by any reasonable measure with this statement.

Now you can argue that the legal standard should be more expansive, or tailored or hewn (and good luck there). But as it stands it is not (and with eminently good reason). But the question put was, "can't LE do something .." And with regards the stumbling and hashed words of this weekend - the answer is clearly, "No."

[sop]

2. Trump said "bloodbath" not "bloodshed."

"Former President Donald Trump claimed that he — not President Biden — will protect Social Security and warned of a 'bloodbath' if he loses in November as he campaigned for Senate candidate Bernie Moreno in Ohio."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ohio-campaign-rally-trump-says-there-will-be-bloodbath-if-he-loses-november-election/

Trump's defenders will say he used "bloodbath" in a political or economic context, that Trump was warning of the disastrous political and economic effects of not protecting SS.

[Think. Again.]

4. Thanks I editted that...

...and I saw the video, trump was rambling about car manufacturing when he started to suggest that when he is elected things in that industry would change.

As an aside to that topic, he said that if he isn't elected, there would be a bloodbath in this country.

[Walleye]

8. The man has a history of fomenting violence. Remember on January 6 he did nothing to stop it

[sop]

15. Trump uses thinly veiled threats of violence to incite his MAGA followers, then later denies having done so.

Trump believes it provides him plausible deniability.

[Walleye]

32. So basically, a mob boss

[sop]

46. He speaks like the feds have his phone bugged.

[PufPuf23]

133. Trump has made multiple threats in his appearances and social media and has no

qualms about killing and intent to kill innocent people in his statements.

[pwb]

5. We have a President now who will not sit by

and will act on any threat. Trump has no real standing with law enforcement either way. He is not what he thinks he is this time around.

[Think. Again.]

6. Unless I'm mistaken...

...isn't it up to the various law enforcement agencies to "keep the peace"? I don't think the office of President is involved in crime prevention.

[pwb]

7. You sensationalize Trump

and under estimate Joe Biden. IMO.

[Think. Again.]

9. I don't mean to, but I do take the threat trump poses seriously.

And I haven't spoken about Biden.

[Captain Zero]

10. The FBI should visit Trump and investigate what he meant by that statement

Why would they not?

[Think. Again.]

12. Yes, even 911 calls are taken very seriously when threats are made...

...and this one was made extremely publicly.

[onenote]

25. Because it would be pointless and counterproductive?

[Think. Again.]

31. Public Safety is pointless and counterproductive?

[onenote]

36. No, law enforcement asking Trump what he meant would be pointless and counterproductive

He'll say he was referring to the economy. And that will be it, except he'll be able to rant and rave about the weaponized DOJ going after him for protected political speech.

[Think. Again.]

47. Oh, okay, so that approach wouldn't be used...

...but my question remains, is there anything that can be done to protect public safety after trump has communicated this credible threat?

[Polybius]

81. No n/t

[Think. Again.]

84. I think you're right...

For 2 reasons:

1. According to Brandenburg v. Ohio, the threat must be "imminent" and he has scheduled this threat for after the election months from now.

2. He expressed his call for violence by his minions as a thought and not a direct message such as "stand back and stand by".

[Polybius]

87. I remember several years back some talk show host wished death on a prominent public figure

Turns out, that was legal. You can hope someone dies, but you can't call for anyone's death (unless they were Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden, because it seemed like everyone was calling for their execution at one time).

[Think. Again.]

92. That's a different topic...

...We know, and trump knows, that trump followers will commit violence base on his dogwhistles. Many who have been convicted of violence on Jan 6 attested to that in court.

Based on that knowledge, a reasonable person can conclude that this latest statement from trump is indeed a call for violence when certain conditions are met (his election loss).

[et tu]

18. defendant 45 isn't in charge

joe is and i agree with you, i trust the dems in charge
to do what is necessary. remember pelosi pushing forward with
the electoral count? we just need the big blue tsunami and make
our votes count. no doubt rw will try something but it won't be on
the scale of j6 imho~

[doc03]

11. The DOJ doesnt want to appear political. nt

[Think. Again.]

13. Can I use that excuse to not do MY job?

[doc03]

19. Apparently, it works we still have Garland apologists here nt

[GiqueCee]

14. Seems like...

... they'd rather quibble over semantics than prepare for the inevitable disruption. I mean, it's not like he's ever done anything like this before, is it? Ummm... wait a minute.
Cable news channels are undoubtedly frothing at the mouth hoping he and his shitgibbon cult go totally psycho. If it bleeds, it leads. Think of the ratings!

[DiverDave]

169. Les Moonves

Former CEO of CBS said trump would be bad for the country, but great for CBS.
It's always about the money, always.

[GiqueCee]

186. Yeah, I mentioned Moonves' remark...

... in a reply to another OP on the subject.

I am astounded that so many people – even here on DU – are making excuses for this psychopath. He's shown us time and time again exactly who, and what, he is. It's the only time I would say, believe him.

[onenote]

16. No, and there won't be.

It wasn't a threat. It was hyperbole. Even for a wannabe dictator, there still is a first amendment in this country. And while it won't be a popular view here, taken in the context of the speech, it was a reference to the economy.

[Think. Again.]

33. I watched his speech and ...

...his threat of a bloodbath if he isn't elected was not a continuation of the previous thought he was expressing on the topc of the auto industry, it was thrown in on the specific topic of his being elected or not.

[onenote]

41. I watched the speech and it was an aside in the middle of a discussion of economic issues

At best it was ambiguous and law enforcement isn't going to do anything about ambiguous political speech that doesn't violate any laws. It's not an actionable threat, it is not an incitement to imminent action.

What law enforcement should be doing -- without regard to Trump's blather -- is following up leads, relying on undercover sources, etc. to sniff out any actual plans of violence before, during or after the election.

[Think. Again.]

49. I certainly do hope they are doing just that...

...because that sounds like the answer to my original question.

[stopdiggin]

110. 100% it wasn't remotely something LE could/should address. -(nt)-

[GAJMac]

20. I think the correct question is

"WILL law enforcement do anything now to protect the safety of citizens?" (I tend to believe that quite a few in law enforcement and the military are followers of the cult of Trump)

[enigmania]

21. Perhaps a class

action lawsuit for causing excessive anxiety.

[Think. Again.]

34. or a basic charge of 'communicating a threat'?

[onenote]

44. His statement was not a "true threat" as defined in the law and under the constitution.

It just isn't. Yet, i've seen numerous posters here advocate for "extra judicial" action against Trump and his supporters, including hauling him to Guantanamo without charging him with any violation of any law.

[Think. Again.]

50. Without charging? I certainly disagree with that.

But as to the question that seems to be raised about why the DOJ is being overly cautious because they would have to jail him somewhere, Guantanamo does make sense.

[Ocelot II]

59. Funny how authoritarian people can become when they think they're on the "correct" side.

[onenote]

62. +1

[Think. Again.]

64. Or when their lives are being threatened.

[Ocelot II]

70. Whose lives were threatened?

[Think. Again.]

73. As a known minority and locally known anti-magat, ...

...I feel I can reasonably assume that his minions will be targetting me when they eventually act on his call for a bloodbath if he loses the election. So, MY life has been publicly threatened, and I don't think I'm alone in that reasonable assumption.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

99. Cool story bro

[Think. Again.]

103. You don't have make assumptions about me whom you don't know...

...whether or not you believe me, there's no doubt that there are people who will be targetted by local trump minions as soon as they get the signal from trump.

As so many already have been.

[onenote]

111. And if Trump is arrested for his comment, will you be safer or will that trigger the violence you fear will happen

if he loses.

[Think. Again.]

124. I usually find that eliminating the cause...

...is a good way to reduce the effect.

[onenote]

125. So the wildly loyal Trumpers who will engage in violence if he loses the election

will calmly accept it if he's taken to Guantanamo now? Do you really believe that?

[Think. Again.]

128. It would surely star some chaos, but would pre-empt whatever...

...carefully orchestrated, multi-pronged, and well-supported plan he is putting in place.

[onenote]

137. Please provide DOJ with the evidence of a carefully orchestrated, multi-pronged and well-supported plan

And while you are at it, please post it here as well.

[Think. Again.]

140. If I were in a position to do that...

...I would already be an employee of the DOJ, since they are responsible for the safety of the public.

If you honestly don't believe trump and his crew are not planning to try again a second time, I don't know what would convince you.

[Emile]

159. Was the January 6th committee authoritarian when they thought they were on the correct side?

For a list of laws Trump broke click here: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/the-jan-6-committee-says-trump-broke-these-laws-heres-a-guide

[Ocelot II]

160. No. They were operating within the law,

openly and without violating the Constitution. They issued subpoenas and held hearings. They made recommendations. However, they were not an arm of law enforcement in the first place and didn’t exceed their authority.

[Emile]

161. Garland could have and still can follow their advice.

Lock the bastard up!

[Ocelot II]

162. What do you think Jack Smith has been doing?

[Emile]

163. Jack Smith is trying to bring the bastard to justice.

In the meantime we have a terrorist openly running for president.

[PufPuf23]

135. Look upthread at post #131

Local to my county, a man was arrested 4 days ago for making threats in social media. Took local LE over two months to investigate. Could be because antisemitic threats.

[Ocelot II]

69. How was the statement actually unlawful? What law was broken?

In Ohio, where the statement was made, the statute concerning terroristic threats, Section 2909.23, says:

(A) No person shall threaten to commit or threaten to cause to be committed a specified offense when both of the following apply:

(1) The person makes the threat with purpose to do any of the following:

(a) Intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

(b) Influence the policy of any government by intimidation or coercion;

(c) Affect the conduct of any government by the threat or by the specified offense.

(2) As a result of the threat, the person causes a reasonable expectation or fear of the imminent commission of the specified offense.

Arguably paragraph 1 could apply (assuming the definition of specified felony offense could include something as vague as a "bloodbath" ) but was there "a reasonable expectation or fear of the imminent commission" of a bloodbath? I don't think so. The statute follows the Brandenburg v. Ohio requirement that there be a reasonable expectation of imminent lawless action. If you're going to advocate for imprisoning people for speech, even abhorrent speech, you'd better have a legal reason for it.

[Think. Again.]

72. If we apply the testimony of...

...various Jan 6 convicts who attested in court that trump's statements such as this one incited them to commit that violence, then yes, there is...

"...a reasonable expectation or fear of the imminent commission" of a bloodbath... "

[Ocelot II]

74. It has to be imminent in the context of the statement made.

Was anyone made to fear an imminent (meaning right now, not at some unspecified time in the future - presumably after November and only if he's not elected) bloodbath, whatever he meant by a bloodbath? I read the remark and I was appalled, as I am often appalled by Trump, but I'm not fearing an imminent bloodbath.

[Think. Again.]

76. True, I agree, the Brandenburg v. Ohio. standard does not cover violent acts scheduled to be committed months from now.

[Ocelot II]

86. And there you have it. Of course the statement was appalling, but it wasn't legally actionable.

In a way I hope he keeps saying increasingly horrible things; maybe more people will start to realize what a lunatic he is. I don't think his hard-core MAGA cult members will care (they probably love it), but others still on the fence might see the light.

[Think. Again.]

88. Now I understand why some are calling for...

...EXTRAjudicial action to be taken.

People's lives are stake.

[Ocelot II]

89. Calling for extrajudicial action makes us as bad as the MAGA.

[Think. Again.]

91. and keeps us alive.

[Ocelot II]

93. No.

From A Man For All Seasons:

William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”

Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”

William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”

Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!”

When we agree to cut down the law we have no protection at all. We are as bad as they are.

[Ponietz]

144. Brilliant quote

It’s rule of law or nothing for me. Extrajudicial remedies are out of the question.

[onenote]

183. You think using extrajudicial means to lock up trump will reduce the risk of violence?

Wrong. It would make it even worse, since more of his followers who might accept his defeat at the polls will react violently to his being locked up without a trial or conviction and prevented from campaigning.

[limbicnuminousity]

108. Torn on this.

What you wrote sounds true. On the other hand:

https://www.salon.com/2024/02/01/right-wing-violence-hasnt-disappeared-its-just-gone-local/
Right-wing violence hasn't disappeared, it's just gone local

If it wasn't for the head of his murdered father's body, a video posted on YouTube by Justin Mohn Tuesday night would be indistinguishable from much of what passes for "content" in the world of far-right social media. In the video titled "Call to Arms for American Patriots," the 33-year-old resident of suburban Pennsylvania raved about "the traitorous Biden regime" and claimed a "fifth column army of illegal immigrants infiltrates our border" and that "far left, woke mobs rampage our once prosperous cities." He repeatedly called on viewers to attack federal employees and accused his deceased father, whose head he put on display, of being a "traitor" for working for the federal government.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/sep/30/man-maga-hat-new-mexico-shooting-charged
Man in Maga hat charged over shooting of Indigenous activist at statue protest

An Indigenous justice activist is recovering after a man wearing a hat with the Donald Trump slogan “Make America great again” allegedly shot him during a protest against the reinstallation of a statue honoring a Spanish conquistador in New Mexico.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/07/daniel-rodimer-arrest-murder
Trump-backed former congressional candidate arrested for murder

A former pro wrestler who won a prominent endorsement from Donald Trump while unsuccessfully running for Congress in Nevada surrendered to authorities on Wednesday on an arrest warrant for murder.

Daniel Rodimer, 45, was booked in connection with the slaying of 47-year-old Christopher Tapp, who was reportedly beaten to death in Resorts World Las Vegas on 29 October.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/michigan-man-killed-wife-went-rabbit-hole-conspiracy-theories-trumps-2-rcna47701
Michigan man who killed his wife went down a 'rabbit hole' of conspiracy theories after Trump's 2020 loss, daughter says

Igor Lanis became obsessed with QAnon and the "deep state" before he gunned down his wife, nearly killed their daughter and then was fatally shot by police, his other daughter said.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/barry-morphew-was-accused-of-murdering-his-wife-and-casting-her-vote-for-trump-but-prosecutors-stumbled
How a Husband-Wife MAGA Murder Saga Descended Into Chaos

Prosecutors last May filed several charges against Morphew, which offered shocking details about how the 53-year-old allegedly planned and covered up Suzanne Morphew’s murder a year earlier, on May 9, 2020. Days after his arrest, the father-of-two was hit with additional charges for allegedly submitting a mail-in ballot on behalf of his missing wife—and casting her vote for Donald Trump.

When does preemption become self-defense?

[stopdiggin]

115. what does preemption look like .. ?

any (tenable) proposals - that don't trammel all over rights and innocent citizens?

[limbicnuminousity]

123. Still looking for an answer to that question.

Nobody wants "thought police." Yet the situation is untenable.

The real long term solution, I think, is to split the country. It's unrealistic and won't happen but it would prevent a mess down the road (imo). I suspect the country is heading towards Balkanization within the next 50 years if something isn't done now to address the polarizing divide in the US. It's a moot point though because it will never be seriously considered. If you think that's a crazy notion, consider the anticipated impact of climate change. Immigration is going to accelerate, disproportionate demands are going to be placed on national resources as climate catastrophes annihilate the South and West Coast, evangelicals are going to insist on saving every zygote in anticipation of the resurrection/apocalypse, and rich assholes in gated communities will increasingly rely on private mercenary forces for their own security. I worry for the younger generations.

Imprisoning 30% of the Republican base, delightful as it is to contemplate, is unrealistic. Also unnecessary. The glue that holds them together is a blend of hatred and fear drawn into sharp focus by Trump. He's the political avatar of humanity's worst instincts whose rise to office was only made possible by inherited wealth. Destroy Trump and a select few members of the Republican leadership and the 'movement' goes back into hibernation.

The question becomes "how do we do that within certain ethical constraints?" Normally, voting and relying on the judicial system is the responsible answer. But the voting process and the electoral system has been compromised and is susceptible to further compromise. The judicial system is broken and corrupt.

I'd like to see the DOJ (and IRS) truly unleashed with prejudice to investigate everything Trump as well as many members in the Republican leadership.

I'd like to see an end to lifetime appointments for justices and the implementation of a judicial ethics review panel that includes apolitical review members to take a look at things like Clarence Thomas's personal finances.

And I'd really like to see Trump, Paul, Biggs, Greene, DeSantis, Boebert and Tuberville among others arrested and held for suspicion under conspiracy charges. What conspiracy? Take your pick. One place to start might be the assault weakening military readiness by blocking promotions and preventing an inquiry into the prevalence of Nazi-ism in the US military.

How much of that is feasible is debatable. But it stops short of going extra-extra-judicial.

Have to stop short, family minor emergency.

[TexasDem69]

152. You want to weaponize the DOJ and IRS

Against Republicans? That’s the exact thing Trump claimed has happened. It hasn’t, and it shouldn’t. That’s exactly how a banana republic operates.

And you want to imprison republicans for whatever crime we can fabricate? Again, a banana republic.

I absolutely and completely reject this sort of despotism, as would President Biden, President Obama, etc., etc.

[limbicnuminousity]

153. Happy for you.

No, I commented on targeting specific Republican leaders who have consistently and repeatedly shown signs of acting against American interests. Sorry you don't see that. If they want to hang out with and advance the ambitions of individuals like Stewart Rhoades or Enrique Tarrio and then conspire to prevent the investigation of neo-Nazi influences in law enforcement or the military, they should be locked up and investigated. They conspired to overthrow the election and they've conspired to protect the insurrectionists from being held accountable. They're conspiring now to control the election outcomes later this year.

Yes, I would like a forensic audit to determine what funds are coming from Russian sources. Yes, if they're conspiring to subvert the election outcomes of the nation they should be held accountable. And they've repeatedly shown cause for suspicion to justify it.

You keep making sure we're treating them fairly though, there's obviously not enough forces at work to that end.

[yagotme]

165. Not quite...

I'd like to see the DOJ (and IRS) truly unleashed with prejudice to investigate everything Trump as well as many members in the Republican leadership.

No, I commented on targeting specific Republican leaders who have consistently and repeatedly shown signs of acting against American interests.

"Everything Trump" can mean supporters, as well. "Everything" being all-inclusive, as it is...

[limbicnuminousity]

170. Ah, okay.

I meant "everything Trump" as in every single thing he's got his grubby little fingers in. Foreign ties. Mafia ties. Conspiracy. Search all of his properties for missing classified documents and stolen White House silverware.

If I meant his supporters I would have referred to "his supporters," "MAGA-types" or "MAGAts."

[yagotme]

171. Yes, there was a bit of confusion with "everything".

I can see where the other poster could have had a similar interpretation to mine.

[limbicnuminousity]

173. Thanks for straightening it out.

I also like everything liberal and all things progressive, if that clarifies matters.

[yagotme]

175. No prob.

Sometimes the forest is hidden by the trees.

[stopdiggin]

113. what an utterly dangerous, destructive, and ill thought direction that takes us ...

listen to yourself .. !

[Think. Again.]

127. I believe it is trump that has taken us in this utterly dangerous, destructive, and ill thought direction

[yagotme]

166. So, your plan is to follow him off the cliff??? nt

[Think. Again.]

167. My hope is that we stop all this BEFORE the cliff.

[yagotme]

168. By legal means, yes.

Not by the way Drumph does it. We would be no better than him if we used the same illegal means that he does.

[Think. Again.]

172. I agree.

[onenote]

182. How do you think his followers will react if he's jailed without trial or conviction before the election?

Look, like many here, I'm concerned that if he is defeated, his followers will react violently. I had that concern before his "bloodshed" remark. But if you think his followers are inclined to violence if he loses, you should be equally, if not more concerned that locking him up via extra judicial action, preventing him from campaigning, will cause those same people -- and maybe more -- to react violently.

[Think. Again.]

185. Yeah, can we stop?

It's clear when you read my posts on this side thread that I'm not advocating for anything illegal or immoral, or unethical.

I simply mentioned that I am beginning to understand how this frustrating and dangerous situation can lead to thoughts of an extrajudicial solution to trump's dangerous activities.

You're trying to frame me as some kind of violent vigilante and I don't appreciate that.

Thanks for your input on the OP but let's stick with reality.

[stopdiggin]

112. sorry. that doesn't even come close to flying.

and would be laughed out of any court in this country.
(excuse .. any decent court .. unfortunately we have some real clown shows out there .. but by any reasonable and recognized standard of jurisprudence .. this doesn't even make it through the door.)

[Think. Again.]

126. I'm pretty sure a defendent's history...

...as it applies to charges, IS indeed considered by courts.

[PufPuf23]

139. Trump's offenses / threats are repeated and well documented, live and his posts to social media.

Look at post #131, local to my county. Threats over social media. Took LE over two months to investigate.

[malaise]

23. THIS

Enough of this madness

[Ferrets are Cool]

26. I honestly believe that if he shot someone on Broadway, he would not go to jail.

Prove me wrong.

[RussBLib]

39. How could anyone prove you wrong?

...until he actually shoots someone?

Past BS is no guarantee of future BS, or something like that.

[Ferrets are Cool]

57. ...

that's the thing.

[BlueKota]

82. I don't believe he will be jailed for anything including shooting people.

The fact that the Supreme Court even thinks that there is enough of an argument to debate whether a President has full immunity or not, means at least some of them are leaning that way. Otherwise they would have just outright said no they don't.

[BumRushDaShow]

27. Jack Smith will use that to bolster his J6 case

But as many of us who get pummeled with hateful racist, antisemitic, sexist, homophobic, and transphobic speech are told - "it's the First Amendment".

[rubbersole]

30. Slobby's last/only arrow in his quiver is unleashing his violent crazies on the rest of us.

Legally, morally, financially and mentally he has nothing left. It's beyond disturbing that anyone still listens to this psycho deteriorating pos.

[Think. Again.]

37. I agree...

...my question is if any public safety agency can do anything to stop that from happening.

[onenote]

48. Yes, they can use their resources to sniff out any actual planning of violence before, during or after the election

They can and should be monitoring social media and other lines of communication used by Proud Boy-type groups to plan and organize violent activity.

[Think. Again.]

52. Good,...

...we know from previous experience, that HE knows that these dog whistles of his do work to incite his followers to violence, some have even admitted that in court, hopefully the justice system will be able to use those facts to legally stop him from communicating even more violent threats, since his "speech" could now be considered a credible threat.

[rubbersole]

51. Hopefully the followers that will actually do something violent are few and far between.

Let's find out rather than fret about it. This fear
strategy needs to end now while it's tsf/putin causing this division/angst in our country.

[Think. Again.]

53. So having the police respond to threats ...

...shouldn't happen because it might make people afraid of those threats?

[onenote]

58. The police should respond to threats that actually constitute threats under the law.

And his statement doesn't meet the legal test: a serious expression conveying that the speaker means himself or herself to commit an unlawful act of violence. Nor does it meet the test of inciting others to commit violence, because incitement requires an intent to produce "imminent" disorder.

[Think. Again.]

63. Oh, so because he set the date for the violence...

...as a time right after the election he can do it. The election isn't "imminent".

[rubbersole]

83. Of course police should respond.

The nuts that would actually commit violence against other Americans are a very tiny segment of the magat crowd. Police response is probably preferable to what will actually happen. You've heard the gun owner's mantra "A good guy with a gun..." ? Let's just say - I know a lot of good guys.

[Think. Again.]

85. So wait for the murders to occur, then charge them with murder.

[rubbersole]

95. Or we could speculate about a hypothetical non-existent threat.

There is not a magat with a gun ready to go around every corner. Not in my area and I live in Edgewater, FL. Not blue country. The violence threat is very real. Just miniscule. And not going to unleash itself because slobby is getting his ass handed to himself in an election.

[Think. Again.]

96. Ok, your position is to wait for any violence to start...

...mine is to try to stop it from starting.

[onenote]

102. How would you stop it? Arrest every Trump supporter? And charge them with what?

Or should we just round them up and hold them indefinitely without charging them?

[Think. Again.]

105. Both of those suggestions are not good ones...

...but thank you for trying to answer my OP question.

[bluestarone]

35. The blood bath WILL be dealt with, when and IF it occurs

That's how it should be.

[Think. Again.]

40. "Communicating a threat" is a chargable offense...

...and preventing harm in the protection of public safety is a common process for law enforcement agencies.

[bluestarone]

45. Good luck with that.

I hate this bastard as much as anybody here, BUT that's not how our laws work.

[bigtree]

38. more gaslighting about DOJ

...with a really dumb take on the law regarding speech.

In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), the Supreme Court established that speech advocating illegal conduct is protected under the First Amendment unless the speech is likely to incite “imminent lawless action.”

Advocacy can be punished only “where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

In Dennis v. United States (1951), the Court said that the correct interpretation of the clear and present danger doctrine allowed legislatures to decide what was dangerous; the courts in applying the clear and present danger test were simply to determine whether, on balance, the “gravity of the ‘evil,’ discounted by its improbability, justifies such invasion of free speech as is necessary to avoid the danger.” In fact, in Brandenburg, the Court cited Dennis as good law.

https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/brandenburg-v-ohio/#:~:text=Ohio%20%281969%29%201%20Brandenburg%20was%20convicted%20for%20his,issued%20new%20%E2%80%98imminent%20lawless%20action%E2%80%99%20speech%20test%20

...there's absolutely nothing legally actionable about what Trump said, no matter how abhorrent.

[Think. Again.]

43. That's exactly my question...

...is there anythng that can be done to hold trump accountable for illegally communicating a threat and endangering public safety?

[onenote]

54. If he had "illegally' communicated a threat, maybe. But his comment doesn't constitute an illegal "true threat."

As Justice Kagan pointed out in an opinion she authored last year, to be a "true threat" is a statement must constitute a "'serious expression' conveying that the speaker means to 'commit an act of unlawful violence.'" Trump's statement doesn't meet that test, particularly because he isn't saying he will commit an act of violence. And it doesn't constitute "incitement" to others to commit violence under the law for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that incitement requires that the words in question be intended to produce "imminent" disorder. And ambiguously predicted what will happen eight months from now if he loses the election doesn't come close to meeting that standard.

Want to hold Trump accountable? Get out the vote.

[Think. Again.]

61. yes!!! Absolutely! Get Out The Vote! 🌊 !!!

..but we know from past experience that his dogwhistles DO incite violence, there's a thousand people in jail for responding to his previoys dogwhistles, some of them have even admitted in court thatcs what happened, making this latest one a credible threat.

[Ocelot II]

55. Bingo. Trump is a monster, but that was not an actionable threat.

Did he say "I will create a bloodbath"? No, he said "There will be a bloodbath," hyperbolically attributing some possible future occurrence to someone unspecified that isn't necessarily him. There was no incitement to "imminent lawless action," no direct, specific threat. Stochastic terrorism-adjacent, maybe; he's good at being vague enough to stay just within the limits of protected speech. But it is protected speech, at least so far. It's disturbing to me that so many people seem to think it isn't and are looking for some immediate law-enforcement action.

[ecstatic]

179. But he's out on bond pending trial--a privilege, not a right.

He's not a regular guy just talking shit. He's a criminally charged defendant with 88 felony counts, many of which pertain to his violent attempt to overthrow the last election. The conditions of him staying out of jail pending trial are that he abides by certain rules and norms. Those norms would be enforced with any other defendant.

(2) The Defendant shall not violate the laws of this State, the laws of any other state, the laws of the United States of America, or any other local laws. Ayala v. State, 262 Ga. 704, 705 (1993)

(3) The Defendant shall appear in court as directed by the Court. Jd.

(4) The Defendant shall perform no act to intimidate any person known to him or her to be a codefendant or witness in this case or to otherwise obstruct the administration of justice.
Id. This shall include, but is not limited to, the following:

a. The Defendant shall make no direct or indirect threat of any nature against any codefendant;

b. The Defendant shall make no direct or indirect threat of any nature against any witness including, but not limited to, the individuals designated in the Indictment as an unindicated co-conspirators Individual 1 through Individual 30;

c. The Defendant shall make no direct or indirect threat of any nature against any victim;

d. The Defendant shall make no direct or indirect threat of any nature against the community or to any property in the community;

e. The above shall include, but are not limited to, posts on social media or reposts of posts made by another individual on social media;

(5) The Defendant shall not communicate in any way, directly or indirectly, about the facts of this case with any person known to him to be a codefendant in this case except through his or her counsel.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23921630/donald-trumps-bond-agreement.pdf

[Rocknation]

42. Better that Trump should be worried about the BLUE bloodbath

that will mark his third consecutive attempt to get more people to vote for him than against him


Rocknation

[Ocelot II]

56. What do you think should be done?

[Think. Again.]

66. I'm not in law enforcement, but I believe...

...communicating a threat is a chargable offense and with a previous history of successfully inciting violence, I think there is something that can be done to stop that violence from occurring after his publucly stated threat of it.

My question is, WHAT can be done?

[Ocelot II]

71. See #34. Communicating a threat is unlawful only when

it meets the Brandenburg v. Ohio standard of raising a reasonable apprehension of imminent lawless action. Did that happen here? Did anyone actually think a bloodbath (whatever was meant by that) was imminent?

[Think. Again.]

75. After reading the standard, I actually do think that standard applies...

...and I realize others may disagree, and I also realize that's why charges are brought before a court to decide.

You've answered my original question of whether anything can be done, he can charged under Brandenburg v. Ohio.

Thanks!

[Ocelot II]

78. Why do you think the threat was imminent, since the alleged bloodbath

will occur only if Trump isn't re-elected next November? If a "threat" of some unspecified action to be committed by unspecified people against other unspecified people is contingent upon something that may or may not occur eight months in the future, is that imminent? Don't think so.

[Think. Again.]

80. True...

...and I've addressed that in post # 76.

[ecstatic]

60. Our system doesn't appear to be designed to hold white

rightwing terrorists accountable. The past few years have been very enlightening, and not in a good way.

He's currently out on bond in Fulton county and I believe he has violated the bond terms. But tRump gets a pass. He does whatever he wants to, whenever he wants to. No consequences.

[Emile]

65. Never Fear, Garland is Near

[onenote]

104. Curious -- what would you have DOJ do?

Arrest Trump even though his statement doesn't constitute either a true threat or an incitement to violence as those terms are defined?
And if you think his supporters are going to resort to violence if he loses the election, how would arresting him reduce the risk of violence?

[Emile]

106. Curious why would you question a Democrat

wanting Trump behind bars. .

[onenote]

107. Curious why you would question a Democrat

who supports the rule of law.

And for the record, since you seem to need things spelled out, I want Trump behind bars for the actual crimes he has been indicted of committing.

[Emile]

158. Conspiracy to defraud the United States.

For a whole list of laws start here: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/the-jan-6-committee-says-trump-broke-these-laws-heres-a-guide

[onenote]

176. yes, that is one of the crimes he has been indicted for and, as I said, I want to see him convicted of those crimes.

[Emile]

177. Lock him up until his trial. He is continuing to

make terrorist threats against the United States.

[onenote]

178. Not going to happen.

He isn't considered a flight risk nor is he creating an imminent risk of violence.
Plus, if you think his blathering is inciting his followers to commit violence if he loses, what do you think they'll do if he's locked up before he's tried and convicted?

[Emile]

180. Well then arrest him for breaking the strict rules

after he was released on bond after a not-guilty plea to election conspiracy charges. Surely they can find something to lock his ass up until his trial.

[onenote]

181. Here are the 'strict rules' governing his bond release in the January 6 case:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.13.0_7.pdf

The only condition is that he not violate federal, state, or local law while on release. He hasn't been charged with violating any law while on release and, as discussed earlier, his "bloodshed" comment is neither an actionable "true threat" or an "incitement" to imminent violent action.

Again: if you're concerned about Trump's followers becoming violent if he loses -- and I am concerned about that whether or not he says anything about "bloodshed" etc -- then you should be very concerned about the violence that would follow if he was locked up without a trial or conviction and prevented from campaigning.

[stopdiggin]

117. is this where we throw people in jail

without obtaining conviction or sentence? SWEET!
I think this 'Democrat' would prefer to do it the old fashioned way.

[Emile]

118. Then do it!

[stopdiggin]

119. the speech over the weekend did not constitute crime

so I would support neither charges nor jail there.
I think the classified records case will ultimately result in conviction (we'll have to see about jail) - and I'm less sure about some of the other cases (election tampering/subversion) - and now the NY/Bragg trial (which has been a bit of a mess for a while now). But I can wait! That's what observers do!

[Emile]

120. Well many of us are getting tired of waiting.

[stopdiggin]

121. so you're just going to start jailing people ..

or perhaps beating them up in the streets? Reeducation camps? Gottcha! Good luck with your extra-judicial endeavors! (but not really)

[Emile]

122. Yea that's what I'm doing.

[TexasDem69]

134. You're getting tired of waiting

And just want people in jail without a conviction. That’s not the way the rule of law works. And Democrats should defend the rule of law, regardless of what republicans do

[Emile]

141. Every Democrat I know is tired of waiting for justice

except for maybe one or two in this thread.

[TexasDem69]

145. What justice do you want?

Trump hasn’t been convicted of any crime. If you’re calling for extra-judicial justice then you’re no better than Trump. But since you refuse to clarify we’ll just be left guessing I suppose

[Think. Again.]

148. Correct...

...we want him prosecuted for the crimes we believe he has (and is) committing.

[Emile]

174. Conspiracy to defraud the United States would be

a start. For a whole list of laws he has broken start here: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/the-jan-6-committee-says-trump-broke-these-laws-heres-a-guide

[tritsofme]

146. Too bad. It's not my concern that people have the patience and attention span of a 3 year old.

[Emile]

150. Wow, Trump should have been in prison right after

he tried to overthrow our government and have his Vice President murdered.

[Polybius]

79. No, because of the way it was worded

He implied that he "thinks" there will be a bloodbath if he loses. Had he said that he'd call for one, it would be another story.

[triron]

114. Bet Michael Cohen has some advice for you.

[Polybius]

155. I don't take advice from him

We've disagreed in the past.

[stopdiggin]

116. and actually, the 'call' would have to be married to specifics

Like, "We meet here tomorrow morning - and if you don't have a weapon, we'll be passing out knives, guns and machetes."

[GAJMac]

94. All are equal

All are equal in the eyes of the law. (Except Republicans. Like pigs, repubs are "more equal&quot

[Runningdawg]

97. Yeah, the cops (and military) under his control are making their lists and checking them twice.

[Think. Again.]

98. Yes, that makes this even more serious than just his civilian minions.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

132. FYI

President Biden is Commander-in-Chief.

If there are stray MAGAts in the military and/or law enforcement, losing their pensions and facing court martial, etc. might give them pause.

[Runningdawg]

184. Do you understand the term fragging? Think it only happens on a battlefield? Or with a gun?

Strays, um hmm....You do realize that MAGAts send their kids to the military so they can come home and train others?

[orthoclad]

187. Like the ones who attacked the Capitol?

Or the generals who helped plan the coup?

[DBoon]

101. The right is very good at crafting messages of violence that stride the line of legality...

... while the intended audience for these messages knows exactly what to do.

How many January 6 traitors tried to defend themselves by saying they were just doing what trump wanted them to do?

We wring our hands over the first amendment while the armed MAGATs are training with their firearms.

[Lovie777]

129. None that I'm aware of.................................

and shithole's cult, including but not limited to GQPs' point blank calling for the execution of Presidents Obama and Biden and Democrats. Where is corporate media? Yea right, covering for shithole.

[Think. Again.]

130. At least when individuals are threatened, security is put in place...

...my post is questioning what, if anything, can be done about this recent trump threat to 'this country' (as he put it).

[usedtobedemgurl]

136. Someone on MSNBC

Said it was in reference to the automobile industry. Heard it on Sirius and just got home, so have not had a chance to look it up. Whomever said it was derisive and said it would not stop Dems from taking it as a general threat. Had to look down to see if I was on the right channel.

[Think. Again.]

138. He said if he is not elected there would be a bloodbath in the whole country...

...he interrupted some babble about auto industry tariffs to say that.

[usedtobedemgurl]

142. Yes, why I had to check the station. nt

[Rhiannon12866]

154. K&R! That is the question of the year!!!

We need to remember that he's out on bail and he signed an agreement to be "detained" if he persisted in his attacks on judges, AG's, generals, members of Congress, and even court personnel. He's clearly putting all these Americans in danger, as he did with Capitol Police, Mike Pence and Nancy Pelosi on January 6th, so what's the hold up???

[orthoclad]

156. Of course not. They're all Trumpets.

Like the FBI emails complaining about the Maralago raid.

Hold this thought: nearly all the people who we empower to carry lethal weapons - and use them at their discretion - are fans of Trump. Either because they're Reich-wingers or they think "he's got their back".

This worries me.

[Think. Again.]

157. It would be good if we could get...

...a solid number on the percentage of law enforcement officers who are trumpers, where they're concentrated, etc. If something big does goes down, that would be useful information.

[orthoclad]

188. We can't get that info,

useful as it might be.

Look at the J6. Some cops opened barricades and waved the crowd through. One cop took grinning selfies with the mob. While other cops fought for their lives against the mob.

In lieu of solid information, for our own safety we have to assume that LEO and the mil are riddled with magats.