Stunning Trump revelations raise fears of a dark, violent future

[erronis]

16. There are a couple of other uses that predated Luttig and Clancy

In law: Schenck vs. the United States (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/clear_and_present_danger)

The clear and present danger test originated in Schenck v. the United States. The test says that the printed or spoken word may not be the subject of previous restraint or subsequent punishment unless its expression creates a clear and present danger of bringing about a substantial evil.
Requirements:

The clear and present danger test features two independent conditions: first, the speech must impose a threat that a substantive evil might follow, and second, the threat is a real, imminent threat. The court had to identify and quantify both the nature of the threatened evil and the imminence of the perceived danger.
Scope of the test:

The rule has been applied—with very mixed results—in cases involving—

● criminal prosecutions for opposition to war

● statutes penalizing the advocacy of the overthrow of the government by force or violence

● attacks on courts or judges or contempt proceedings against lawyers

● picketing

● regulation of prison inmates' access to newspapers, periodicals, and so forth

● incitement to commit crimes

● breach of the peace or disorderly conduct

and an earlier neocon efforts grouped under the "Committee on the Present Danger":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_the_Present_Danger
The second incarnation of this committee were perhaps the most damaging. And some of the players are still playing with foreign and domestic policy.