• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

'Bleed you out' like a pig: Feds bust man for threatening Trump whistleblower lawyer

Chomsky said:
Source: (NBC News) 'Bleed you out' like a pig: Feds bust man for threatening Trump whistleblower lawyer

The article is pretty straight-forward:

Trump holds up a picture of his impeachment whistle-blower's lawyer at a rally, inciting the crowd. The next day his supporter delivers a death threat (one of many threats!) to the lawyer. Today, the Trump supporter is indicted.

So now we shall see if Trump comes to his supporter's defense, and if he will pardon him or commute his sentence if found guilty.
Click to expand...

what he did was illegal he should have gone to jail.
pretty simple.
 
WillyPete said:
What I find so fascinating is that if you described the purpose of whistleblower protections independent of any context, most of these same people would be supportive, or at least see the value in it.
Click to expand...

this guy wasn't a whistleblower. he has 0 evidence. it was all hearsay and he lied about half the stuff.
so he loses any protections that he would get as a real whistle blower.

this was another cheap partisan attack by democrats.
 
VanceMack said:
Any threat of violence should be acted on by authorities and anyone that makes it should be handled to the fullest extent of the law. No place for that bull****.
Click to expand...

But, but, but First AMENDMENT!!!
 
HenryChinaski said:
Threatening someones life or property is taken seriously for good reason. Be it verbally, via recording or by email. And again, we can all breath easy that your opinion carries no weight within the legal process. Don't threaten others if you're not prepared for the consequences.
Click to expand...

Just another shameful chapter in this incredibly sleazy lawyer's life.

A small fine and suspended sentence at MOST should more than cover it.
 
year2late said:
I get many emails a day. If I got one saying they would hunt me down and bleed me out - I would be seriously freaked. I would expect the police would help me find the person - I would expect that the person threatening me would get a visit.

How many email do you get threatening to harm you?
Click to expand...

I think you'd be very surprised by the reality you'd encounter.

Sleazy lawyers with some degree of visibility and connection are treated to a different standard of care.

Something the sleazy lawyer knows, and used to push this disabled man's crucifixion.

Utterly shameful.
 
year2late said:
'''Bleed you out''' like a pig: Feds accuse man of threatening Trump whistleblower'''s lawyer

I do not care if he is disabled. That email was a threat. The recipient will have no idea whether he as the desire to carry out the threat.

If I got that email, I would be seriously upset and worried. I would feel terrorized. I would be looking over my shoulder in worry. I would fear for my family.

If his disability is mental, then he can get 5150'd and they can see if he is a risk to others due to his mental illness.

This kind of crap needs to be taken seriously. Period.

I do not know if he deserves jail or not. But people need to be on notice that freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences of that speech.
Click to expand...

Not an unreasonable position in general.

In this particular case...
 
Chomsky said:
Source: (NBC News) 'Bleed you out' like a pig: Feds bust man for threatening Trump whistleblower lawyer

The article is pretty straight-forward:

Trump holds up a picture of his impeachment whistle-blower's lawyer at a rally, inciting the crowd. The next day his supporter delivers a death threat (one of many threats!) to the lawyer. Today, the Trump supporter is indicted.

So now we shall see if Trump comes to his supporter's defense, and if he will pardon him or commute his sentence if found guilty.
Click to expand...

I don't think that you and others like you have ever condemned these threats against my president, which in my mind makes you biased and two faced. See attached.
UNITED STATES—On Saturday, October 18, actress, musician, and filmmaker, Barbara Streisand, 77, joined a growing list of stars who have made threats against President Donald Trump

Streisand shared an image via Twitter of a large high-heeled shoe with the name Pelosi on the side, piercing through the body of a caricature of President Trump. Beneath him, you could see red blood spilling out.

Making a credible threat against the President of the United States, Vice President, or other government official is against the law. Anyone making such a threat could be charged with a felony which is punishable up to 5 years in federal prison and up to a $250,000. fine.

The United States Department of Justice indicated in January 2019, an individual from Puerto Rico threated President Trump. Another individual from Baton Rouge, Louisiana who made threats against the POTUS was found mentally competent to stand trial.



Social media posts went viral in March 2017 after rapper Snoop Dogg made a violent video portraying the death of President Trump, calling him “Ronald Klump.”

President Trump tweeted “Jail Time” in response to the video. Rapper Bow Wow chimed in with threats to President Trump with foul language that ended with another threat to the first lady in attempt to silence the President that read “Before we pimp your wife and make her work for us.”

Kathy Griffin posted a video holding a bloody head of President Trump in May 2017 during a photo shoot. After holding up what looked like scalped head of President Trump, “Saturday Night Live” started a “Stop the scalpings campaign.” Griffin later publicly blamed SNL creator Lorne Michaels for not being able to find work after that incident.

Streisand and Bette Midler have Twitter pages attributed to negativity towards President Trump. Actress Jane Fonda’s Twitter page contains hateful rhetoric for President Trump, where she has publicly stated she would be on the Capitol steps every Friday to fight for climate change. Fonda was recently arrested this past week, while protesting in the Washington D.C.

According to reports, actor Tom Arnold had members of the Secret Service show up at his door, after he made threats against President Trump and his son Donald Trump Jr. on social media. Actor Johnny Depp publicly made a threat against Trump stating “When was the last time an actor assassinated a president? I want to clarify, I’m not an actor. I lie for a living. However, it’s been a while, and maybe it’s time.”
 
Tbird19482 said:
I am sure he has
but that is in the Federal part of this
The state of NY AG can bring charges against Trump when he gets out of office, and as of now from what I have read they have charges they can bring
if he did anything wrong that doesn't have a statute of limitations on it and they suspend the time he was in office ( because the DOJ says they can't bring any charges against a sitting President any Statute of limitations should be suspended )
There are Income tax questions they are looking into, fraud, and other things
I hope NY doesn't let a scumbag like him off, IF they do have some real solid charges against him and they did that would be a real miscarriage of justice
have a nice night
Click to expand...

The factor that your argument overlooks is that Mr. Trump's lawyers will be taking the (quite legally correct) position that the "Statute of Limitation" laws do NOT contain any exception for any situation where "prosecution is prohibited during the existence of _[fill in the blank]_, whether that prohibition is by statute or policy". They will also be taking the (quite legally correct) position that "intent" is totally irrelevant when there is no confusion as to the plain language meaning of the actual words of the statute".

To illustrate that last point (using an example that is so silly in detail that it couldn't possibly happen) if a "Republican" (whatever that means) dominated legislature INTENDED to make belonging to "The _[fill in the blank]_ Party" illegal but, through sheer incompetence and lack of attention to what it was actually doing passed legislation that (in effect) read:

The Final Reform Effectively Eliminating Dire Oppressive Menaces Act


  1. This Act may be referred to as The FREEDOM Act.
  2. Membership in "The Republican Party" is a Class 1A Felony.
  3. Upon the laying of an indictment alleging that a person is a member of "The Republican Party" that person shall immediately, and with effect as of the moment that indictment is laid, be suspended from all elected and/or appointed government (or government related) offices and/or positions until the conclusion of the trial (and all appeals of the judgment arising from that trial) of that indictment.
  4. The penalty for being a member of "The Republican Party" is incarceration for a period of not less than 2,500,00, nor more than 6,000,000, years PLUS a fine of not less than $1,000,000,000 PLUS permanent disqualification from holding any elected or appointed government (or government related) office until such time as the full penalty has been satisfied PLUS a revocation of their voting privileges for the remainder of their natural life or until their sentence has been fully satisfied, whichever shall last occur.
  5. It shall be conclusive, but rebuttable, evidence that a person is a member of "The Republican Party" if, at any time, that person has been registered as a member of "The Republican Party" and the onus of rebuttal of that evidence shall be upon the person charged with being a member of "The Republican Party".
  6. Only proof beyond any doubt shall be sufficient to rebut the evidence that a person accused of being a member of "The Republican Party" shall suffice to rebut the evidence that the person is a member of "The Republican Party" where such evidence consists of the fact that that person has, at any time, been a registered member of "The Republican Party".

If that were to happen, it simply would not matter that that legislation had NOT INTENDED to make membership in "The Republican Party" illegal because the FACT would have been that the unquestionably meaning of the plain language words in that legislation DID MAKE membership in "The Republican Party" illegal.

PS - You may have noticed that the above example isn't actually all that silly because there is at least one poster on DP who WOULD support such legislation (well, maybe they would quite support the full Draconian scope of the penalties in the example - but they WOULD support the ban from government [directly or indirectly] and voting) PROVIDED that the political party that was being made illegal was "The Democratic Party".
 
3leftsdoo said:
I think you'd be very surprised by the reality you'd encounter.

Sleazy lawyers with some degree of visibility and connection are treated to a different standard of care.

Something the sleazy lawyer knows, and used to push this disabled man's crucifixion.

Utterly shameful.
Click to expand...

How bout' not threatening your fellow man with death threats? Novel idea there.
 
HenryChinaski said:
Threatening someones life or property is taken seriously for good reason. Be it verbally, via recording or by email. And again, we can all breath easy that your opinion carries no weight within the legal process. Don't threaten others if you're not prepared for the consequences.
Click to expand...

Please be more careful.

Your post comes perilously close to invoking the "'R' Word" as in "Everyone is "'R' Word" for their own actions." and we all know that using language like that it COMPLETELY unacceptable behaviour in today's society.
 
3leftsdoo said:
Just another shameful chapter in this incredibly sleazy lawyer's life.

A small fine and suspended sentence at MOST should more than cover it.
Click to expand...

If you had been the recipient of the email, would you still be of the same opinion?

I doubt it.
 
3leftsdoo said:
I'm not the topic.

The topic is an incredibly sleazy lawyer who decided to push for the crucifixion of a disabled man who sent an inappropriate email; this to pimp his dubious quasi-celebrity and the notion that conservatives are generally unhinged.

A small fine and suspended sentence may be in order.

Anything more would be morally repugnant.
Click to expand...

Was he supposed to divine that from the email somehow, like through ESP or something? :confused:
 
ludin said:
this guy wasn't a whistleblower. he has 0 evidence. it was all hearsay and he lied about half the stuff.
so he loses any protections that he would get as a real whistle blower.

this was another cheap partisan attack by democrats.
Click to expand...

The Trump appointed IC AG and Trump appointed ADNI disagree with you. I'll go with them.
 
3leftsdoo said:
Just another shameful chapter in this incredibly sleazy lawyer's life.

A small fine and suspended sentence at MOST should more than cover it.
Click to expand...

It's shameful he reported a threat to his life to the police? Should he ignore threats on his life?

And you do know the police/prosecutors will decide the charges and a judge the sentence, right?
 
3leftsdoo said:
Not an unreasonable position in general.

In this particular case...
Click to expand...

So arrest the lawyer if you think he has done something illegal. But if you try to terrorize a person with such threats ....expect jail time is a distinct possibility
 
JasperL said:
The Trump appointed IC AG and Trump appointed ADNI disagree with you. I'll go with them.
Click to expand...

I will go with the reports that said he lied and made **** up.
him and vindman. so i will go with that.

Also the fact that trump was acquitted because none of the witnesses said they have
evidence.

I will go with that.
 
Chomsky said:
Source: (NBC News) 'Bleed you out' like a pig: Feds bust man for threatening Trump whistleblower lawyer

The article is pretty straight-forward:

Trump holds up a picture of his impeachment whistle-blower's lawyer at a rally, inciting the crowd. The next day his supporter delivers a death threat (one of many threats!) to the lawyer. Today, the Trump supporter is indicted.

So now we shall see if Trump comes to his supporter's defense, and if he will pardon him or commute his sentence if found guilty.
Click to expand...

Fine people.
 
Kreton said:
Snitches get stitches when it comes to politicians. Ratting on Trump results in punishment. How do people not know this?
Click to expand...

Apparently the death sentence if Trump has his way. And Trump has his way an awful lot these days.

Trump suggests whistleblower is guilty of treason, punishable by death - Business Insider
"You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart? Right? The spies and treason, we used to handle it a little differently than we do now," the president added...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom