| National
|
[
National ] [ Main Menu ] |
|
|
|
443594 |
|
|
Date: October 31, 2024 at 23:26:52
From: ryan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: the don gives his troops another target... |
URL: https://www.sfgate.com/news/politics/article/trump-says-liz-cheney-might-not-be-such-a-war-19878999.php |
|
why is this criminal not in jail? the last thing biden should do in office is have him locked up at guantanamo...
Rump says Liz Cheney might not be such a 'war hawk' if she had guns pointed at her
By ADRIANA GOMEZ LICON, Associated Press Updated Oct 31, 2024 11:14 p.m.
GLENDALE, Ariz. (AP) — Former President Donald Trump launched another attack on former Rep. Liz Cheney late Thursday, calling the Republican former Wyoming congresswoman a “war hawk” and suggesting she might not be as willing to send troops to fight if she had guns pointed at her.
During an event in Glendale, Arizona, with former Fox News host Tucker Carlson, the Republican presidential candidate was asked if it is weird to see Cheney campaign against him. Cheney has vocally opposed Trump since the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol and has become a surrogate for his Democratic opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris.
Trump called Cheney “a deranged person,” then added: “But the reason she couldn’t stand me is that she always wanted to go to war with people. If it were up to her we’d be in 50 different countries.”
After calling Cheney “a very dumb individual," he said: "She’s a radical war hawk. Let’s put her with the rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her. OK, let’s see how she feels about it. You know, when the guns are trained on her face.
“You know they’re all war hawks when they’re sitting in Washington in a nice building saying, oh gee, well let’s send 10,000 troops right into the mouth of the enemy,” Trump said.
After Harris’ campaign and other Trump critics on social media pounced on the quote, Trump’s campaign responded that he “was talking about how Liz Cheney wants to send America’s sons and daughters to fight in wars despite never being in a war herself.”
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[443605] |
|
443605 |
|
|
Date: November 01, 2024 at 08:43:29
From: mitra, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: the don gives his troops another target... |
URL: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/supreme-court-ruling-makes-it-harder-to-convict-someone-of-making-a-threat |
|
That is straight up a death threat. How does he get
away with it?
Oh, of course. He's got friends. I forgot.
And he would never be convicted in his mental state.
***********
Supreme Court ruling makes it harder to convict someone
of making a threat
"
Give to PBS News Hour now while all gifts are MATCHED!
Double your support for intelligent, in-depth,
trustworthy journalism.
By — Jessica Gresko, Associated Press
Supreme Court ruling makes it harder to convict someone
of making a threat
Politics Jun 27, 2023 4:41 PM EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday to
make it more difficult to convict a person of making a
violent threat, including against the president or
other elected officials.
The Biden administration had warned that the internet
and social media have expanded the number and kinds of
threats in recent years, including online harassment,
intimidation and stalking. And they warned the case
could affect the ability to prosecute threats against
public officials, which have increased in recent years.
The high court was ruling in a case that involves a man
who was sentenced to more than four years in prison in
Colorado for sending threatening Facebook messages. The
man’s lawyers had argued that he suffers from mental
illness and never intended his messages to be
threatening.
The question for the court was whether prosecutors must
show that a person being prosecuted for making a threat
knew their behavior was threatening or whether
prosecutors just have to prove that a reasonable person
would see it as threatening.
Justice Elena Kagan wrote for a majority of the court
that prosecutors have to show that “the defendant had
some subjective understanding of the threatening nature
of his statements.”
“The State must show that the defendant consciously
disregarded a substantial risk that his communications
would be viewed as threatening violence,” she said.
Seven justices agreed with the outcome. Two
conservative justices, Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney
Barrett, dissented.
The Biden administration had been among those arguing
for the lower “reasonable person” standard.
“Threats of violence against public officials in
particular have proliferated in recent years, including
threats against Members of Congress, judges, local
officials, and election workers,” the Biden
administration had noted, saying the case could affect
prosecutions in those cases.
Speech of all kinds is generally protected by the free
speech clause in the Constitution’s First Amendment but
so-called “true threats” are an exception.
The specific case before the justices involved Billy
Counterman. He contacted a musician through Facebook in
2010 to ask her if she would perform in a benefit
concert he said he was organizing. The woman, Coles
Whalen, responded but nothing ever came of it.
Whalen forgot about the exchange, but four years later,
Counterman began sending her Facebook messages again.
He ultimately sent hundreds of messages including ones
that were rambling and delusional and others that were
quotes and memes. Whalen never responded and blocked
Counterman several times, but he would just create a
new account and continue sending messages.
Counterman believed Whalen was responding through other
websites and Facebook pages. Whalen became concerned
after Counterman’s messages — including “You’re not
being good for human relations. Die. Don’t need you.”
and “Was that you in the white Jeep?” — suggested he
was following her in person. Eventually, the messages
were reported to law enforcement and Counterman was
arrested. He was convicted and lost an appeal.
The justices’ ruling is a victory for Counterman and
sends his case back to lower courts for another look.
In a statement, his attorney John Elwood said that they
are “gratified that the Supreme Court agreed with Billy
Counterman that the First Amendment requires proof of
mental state before it can imprison a person for
statements that are perceived as threatening.”
Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, whose office
prosecuted Counterman, said in a statement that the
decision will make it “more difficult to stop stalkers
from tormenting their victims.”
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
[
National ] [ Main Menu ] |