The indictment is another legally baseless waste of taxpayer money [1]:
> To prove a threat against the President in violation of Section 871, the prosecution must offer “(1) the proof of "a true threat" and (2) that the threat is made "knowingly and willfully."“ United States v. Lockhart, 382 F.3d 447, 449-450 (4th Cir. 2004).
[...]
> In Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969), the United States Supreme Court took up the conviction of an 18-year-old man who said this during an anti-draft protest during Vietnam: "They always holler at us to get an education. And now I have already received my draft classification as 1-A and I have got to report for my physical this Monday coming. I am not going. If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L. B. J. . . . . They are not going to make me kill my black brothers." The Court articulated the core of the “true threat” doctrine, noting that political rhetoric, hyperbole, and robust debate that does not convey an intent to do harm is protected by the First Amendment
And assuming for the sake of charity that 8647 on its own is at least inflammatory speech (notwithstanding the multiple noninflammatory meanings of 86 which could apply in relation to POTUS [2]), an April 28, 2026 indictment made over speech communicated on May 25, 2025 to no effect of violence soon after (a day, a week, a month, all nothing) fails the "imminent lawless action" Brandenburg test [3].
Yeah I got 86'd from a bar once. The person I was with got drunk and obnoxious, so we both got thrown out and told not to come back. They specifically told us we were 86'd. But, we were certainly not threatened with death or anything like that. At worst, if we tried to not leave, they might have called the cops on us.
The indictment is another legally baseless waste of taxpayer money [1]:
> To prove a threat against the President in violation of Section 871, the prosecution must offer “(1) the proof of "a true threat" and (2) that the threat is made "knowingly and willfully."“ United States v. Lockhart, 382 F.3d 447, 449-450 (4th Cir. 2004).
[...]
> In Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969), the United States Supreme Court took up the conviction of an 18-year-old man who said this during an anti-draft protest during Vietnam: "They always holler at us to get an education. And now I have already received my draft classification as 1-A and I have got to report for my physical this Monday coming. I am not going. If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L. B. J. . . . . They are not going to make me kill my black brothers." The Court articulated the core of the “true threat” doctrine, noting that political rhetoric, hyperbole, and robust debate that does not convey an intent to do harm is protected by the First Amendment
And assuming for the sake of charity that 8647 on its own is at least inflammatory speech (notwithstanding the multiple noninflammatory meanings of 86 which could apply in relation to POTUS [2]), an April 28, 2026 indictment made over speech communicated on May 25, 2025 to no effect of violence soon after (a day, a week, a month, all nothing) fails the "imminent lawless action" Brandenburg test [3].
[1] https://www.popehat.com/p/the-comey-threat-indictment-is-a-g...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/86_(term)
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
Yeah I got 86'd from a bar once. The person I was with got drunk and obnoxious, so we both got thrown out and told not to come back. They specifically told us we were 86'd. But, we were certainly not threatened with death or anything like that. At worst, if we tried to not leave, they might have called the cops on us.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_threat
Woah.
[dead]