Finally, the first Epstein charge has come in.
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (37)
sorted by:
In the US, it needs to be a realistic threat. Even threats against real people, which are certainly bad form, may get a pass depending on mens rea (see the last Supreme Court ruling on the matter).
So what is this about? Certainly, the threats against government officials may count as true threats, but how can you include threats against people on a list that you claim does not exist?
Like everything else these days, this depends on the town and judge. There's a sheriff in Florida, Mike Chitwood, that has made a hobby of extraditing people from other states for "threats" against his life. For example, this is one such threat posted online:
You might say that's neither actionable nor a direct threat, but the guy who posted it was extradited to Florida from New Jersey and sentenced to a year in prison.
Fucking insane and that faggot sheriff deserves to hang along with his entire traitor family for not having done the job themselves already.
Wasn't Trump's recent shift from "no list" to "Obama/Biden tampered with it making it useless information and a hoax?"
In that regard this could simply be "threatening to kill the people Obama obviously put on this list, like Trump and his cohorts" with extra steps.
Still retarded, but could still be argued in court with wide definitions.
He is not threatening "the list" which does not exist, he's threatening real people who he THINKS are on a list.
He could threaten Martian Invaders, who clearly do not exist, but if he says "the Martians are at the local Walmart, I'm going to kill them all!" then the threat to innocent bystanders is very real.
Real people are being threatened, not a list of people. The "real list" need not exist, HOW would he know who is on it if it were real? Yet he's still threatening them: the people he thinks may be on it ok?
He didn't say who was on the list though.
He doesn't need to say who, the specific targets will come out through investigation & interrogation. He just has to threaten them as a group. He also did name several people, iirc?
Making global (broad, unspecified) threats of mass murder or serial killings is a problem worthy of investigation, yes? Threatening harm is not covered by the 1st.
But there is no Epstein List, they say.
Right, as I said, but none who were on the Epstein List. That seemed like a true threat to me. But they also cited the 'threat' against the Epstein List.
I'd say yes, but it's not clear to me that this isn't covered when the Supreme Court allowed for specified threats to murder from a man against his ex-wife.