Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Breaking: Trump Indicts Political Opponent - Brian Tyler Cohen
The following summary is AI-generated.
Based on the video transcript provided, here are the most important points:
* Alleged Basis of Indictment: Brian and Glenn discuss a reported second indictment of former FBI Director James Comey by the DOJ, allegedly stemming from an Instagram post where he photographed seashells arranged to read "8647," interpreted by prosecutors as a threat to remove the 47th President.
* Vindictive Prosecution Defense: Glenn argues that Comey has a nearly certain defense of "vindictive prosecution," claiming the indictment is a retaliatory move by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche to avoid being fired like his predecessor, Pam Bondi, for failing to secure previous politically motivated cases.
* Criticism of Grand Jury Process: Brian and Glenn assert that grand juries are easily misled by unethical prosecutors, citing the "unlawful" nature of previous indictments obtained by Lindsey Halligan against Comey and others, and suggesting the current indictment suffers from the same lack of integrity.
* Trivial Nature of the Charge: Glenn describes the charges as "beyond laughable," noting that the phrase "86" has multiple innocent meanings (e.g., restaurant slang for "out of stock" ) and that taking a photo of such a arrangement does not constitute a criminal threat against the President.
* Predicted Dismissal and Acquittal: Drawing parallels to the recent acquittal of Sean Dunn (the "sandwich thrower" ), Glenn predicts a jury would quickly reject these charges and that the case will likely be dismissed early in the legal process.
* Potential for Counter-Litigation: Brian and Glenn suggest that if the case proceeds, Comey may ultimately have grounds for a wrongful prosecution lawsuit against the Trump administration's DOJ leadership for ethical violations and misuse of federal power.
4 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
This case is so stupid that Blanche, Patel and the attorney who signed the indictment need to be disbarred or sanctioned. There is existing SCOTUS authority that this statement is protected by the First Amendment. The SCOTUS opinion dealt with a less ambiguous compared to the 8647 being used here
https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/watts-v-united-states/
Court said anti-war protester’s threat was crude political hyperbole
On further appeal, the Supreme Court reversed in a 5-4 per curiam opinion. The majority determined that the federal statute prohibiting threats against the president was constitutional and that true threats receive no First Amendment protection.
However, the majority also determined that Watts’s crude statements were political hyperbole rather than true threats. “What is a threat must be distinguished from what is constitutionally protected speech,” the majority wrote. “The language of the political arena … is often vituperative, abusive, and inexact.”
The Court agreed with Watts’s counsel’s characterization of Watts’s speech as “a kind of very crude offensive method of stating a political opposition to the President” that did not qualify as a true threat.
Justice William O. Douglas concurred in an opinion that would have gone further than the per curiam majority opinion and invalidated the federal statute. “Suppression of speech as an effective police measure is an old, old device, outlawed by our Constitution,” he concluded. Justice Abe Fortas, joined by John Marshall Harlan, dissented in a very short opinion questioning whether the Court should have taken the case.
On further appeal, the Supreme Court reversed in a 5-4 per curiam opinion. The majority determined that the federal statute prohibiting threats against the president was constitutional and that true threats receive no First Amendment protection.
However, the majority also determined that Watts’s crude statements were political hyperbole rather than true threats. “What is a threat must be distinguished from what is constitutionally protected speech,” the majority wrote. “The language of the political arena … is often vituperative, abusive, and inexact.”
The Court agreed with Watts’s counsel’s characterization of Watts’s speech as “a kind of very crude offensive method of stating a political opposition to the President” that did not qualify as a true threat.
Justice William O. Douglas concurred in an opinion that would have gone further than the per curiam majority opinion and invalidated the federal statute. “Suppression of speech as an effective police measure is an old, old device, outlawed by our Constitution,” he concluded. Justice Abe Fortas, joined by John Marshall Harlan, dissented in a very short opinion questioning whether the Court should have taken the case.
