Comey indicted by DOJ for instagram pic of seashells

[Magical Realist]

Really? No one who's been an alcoholic ever falls off the wagon? There's no such thing as a pathological liar?

Stawman. None of that applies to Comey.

I didn't saying anything about any evidence, which makes you the liar. I literally told you: "That's why you indict him and have a trial. To find out."
I'm not a lawyer in the case, so I'm free to have and express my own opinions... regardless of Karens like you whining about it.

Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence dumbass.

Yes, 18 U.S.C. § 871 includes simply transmitting such a message, originated by you or not.

And if it were a crime to post or take a picture or even wear a tee-shirt of "86 47" there would be millions of prosecutions going on by now. There are not. It's a bullshit excuse to target Comey again for nothing, as the courts have repeatedly ruled on Trump's witch hunts in the past.

In the military, "86" is slang for removing, cancelling, discarding, or neutralizing a person, item, or mission.

Yep...as in "removing" Trump from office. Since Comey's not in the military and Trump is not a foreign enemy, its not being used in an allegedly military "kill" sense at all. Context is everything.

[Syne]

Really? No one who's been an alcoholic ever falls off the wagon? There's no such thing as a pathological liar?

Stawman. None of that applies to Comey.

You can't prove that.

I didn't saying anything about any evidence, which makes you the liar. I literally told you: "That's why you indict him and have a trial. To find out."
I'm not a lawyer in the case, so I'm free to have and express my own opinions... regardless of Karens like you whining about it.

Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence dumbass.

Then simply dismiss them. Don't lie about people making claims they didn't, and don't repeatedly tell people to STFU, like a bitchy little Karen.

Yes, 18 U.S.C. § 871 includes simply transmitting such a message, originated by you or not.

And if it were a crime to post or take a picture or even wear a tee-shirt of "86 47" there would be millions of prosecutions going on by now. There are not. It's a bullshit excuse to target Comey again for nothing, as the courts have repeatedly ruled on Trump's witch hunts in the past.

No one said anything about simply taking a picture or wearing a shirt, so again, quit lying.

In the military, "86" is slang for removing, cancelling, discarding, or neutralizing a person, item, or mission.

Yep...as in "removing" Trump from office. Since Comey's not in the military and Trump is not a foreign enemy, its not being used in an allegedly military "kill" sense at all. Context is everything.

You think you have to be in the military to use military slang?

Common military slang adopted by civilians includes "got your six" (I have your back), "Roger that" (understood), "O dark thirty" (very early), "snafu" (chaotic situation), and "pop smoke" (to leave). These terms, along with phrases like "on the double" (fast) and "bite the bullet" (endure pain), are frequently used in everyday language to denote urgency, efficiency, or chaos.
- Gemini

And then there's the context you intentionally left out, because you're a pathological liar:

The slang "86" is used in political threats to mean "get rid of," "eliminate," or "assassinate" a political target, originating from restaurant jargon for disposing of an item or ejecting a person.
- Gemini

Comey is a regular political commentator.

[Yazata]

I haven't really followed this, nor have I had any chance to read the charging documents. That said, I'm inclined to think that it might be a weak case. (The DOJ went ahead and charged Comey, so they must think that they can win it.)

I'm not convinced that 18 USC 871 really applies. It criminalizes threats against the President. It seemingly requires that the threat be mailed, though later case law might have broadened that to any kind of transmission.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/871

The problem that I see is that "86:47" isn't a threat, exactly. It isn't an announcement that Comey intends to kill Trump. It might more reasonably be read as Comey stating the desireability of Trump's assassination. Comey seemed to be saying that he would like to see Trump killed.

I'm not an attorney. But my layman's opinion is that a better crime to charge Comey with might be 18 USC 2385  'Advocating the Overthrow of Government'. On its face it certainly seems to apply to what Comey did:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385

(Highlighting by me)

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or...

There could be lots of defenses to that one. The strongest one might be Comey's attorneys arguing that '86' can be interpreted a variety of different ways, with 'kill' just being one of them. They could argue that Comey actually meant 'get rid of', as through impeachment.

[Syne]

That said, I'm inclined to think that it might be a weak case.

Agreed. Overall, it's just a show that the DOJ is actually doing something.

I'm not convinced that 18 USC 871 really applies. It criminalizes threats against the President. It seemingly requires that the threat be mailed, though later case law might have broadened that to any kind of transmission.

18 U.S.C. § 871
Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
- https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/871

18 U.S.C. § 871 also covers just making the threat.

They seem to be using 18 U.S.C. § 875(c ) to cover transmission of a threat:

Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
- https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/875

The case really hinges on intent.

True Threats: The Supreme Court (Elonis v. United States) established that a "true threat" is required, meaning the sender intended to make a threat or knew it would be perceived as one, rather than just using an objective "reasonable person" standard.
Intent: The government must prove the defendant acted for the purpose of issuing a threat or knew it would be seen as a threat, but they do not need to prove the defendant intended to carry it out.
- Gemini

[Magical Realist]

True Threats: The Supreme Court (Elonis v. United States) established that a "true threat" is required, meaning the sender intended to make a threat or knew it would be perceived as one, rather than just using an objective "reasonable person" standard.
Intent: The government must prove the defendant acted for the purpose of issuing a threat or knew it would be seen as a threat, but they do not need to prove the defendant intended to carry it out.

Which is why it won't win in court. Evidently they define a "true threat" as one being sent to the presumed target, and posting a pic on line isn't sending a threat to anybody. Then there's just the blatant absurdity of calling something a threat a year ago that has never been acted upon. That strongly supports the fact that it wasn't a threat at all. The courts are used to this shit from Trump and there is strong precedent for laughing it out of court as yet another vengeful attempt to weaponize the DOJ against Trump's "enemies".

[Syne]

True Threats: The Supreme Court (Elonis v. United States) established that a "true threat" is required, meaning the sender intended to make a threat or knew it would be perceived as one, rather than just using an objective "reasonable person" standard.
Intent: The government must prove the defendant acted for the purpose of issuing a threat or knew it would be seen as a threat, but they do not need to prove the defendant intended to carry it out.

Which is why it won't win in court. Evidently they define a "true threat" as one being sent to the presumed target, and posting a pic on line isn't sending a threat to anybody. Then there's just the blatant absurdity of calling something a threat a year ago that has never been acted upon. That strongly supports the fact that it wasn't a threat at all. The courts are used to this shit from Trump and there is strong precedent for laughing it out of court as yet another vengeful attempt to weaponize the DOJ against Trump's "enemies".

Again, you obviously can't read simple English.

Nowhere does that say that the threat must be sent directly to the target. Go ahead, read it again. Show us where you imagine it says that.
It doesn't, because you are functionally illiterate.

When "they do not need to prove the defendant intended to carry it out," it should be obvious that it might never be acted upon. The law still applies.
It's all about intent. So the DOJ will likely try to show enough other posts and statements (and maybe private texts, etc.) from Comey that illustrate intent. I don't know how strong that evidence may be.

[Magical Realist]

Nowhere does that say that the threat must be sent

Right here dumbass:

"True Threats: The Supreme Court (Elonis v. United States) established that a "true threat" is required, meaning the sender"

"True threats include when a speaker directs a threat to a person or group of persons with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death."

He didn't send it or direct it to Trump or to anyone in particular, thus making it no threat at all you stupid shit. Nobody in their right mind would ever believe a photo of seashells arranged by somebody on a beach somewhere would ever constitute a threat being made to Trump. If for example I say "somebody should assassinate the President" I haven't made a threat at all. I have simply expressed my opinion, which is protected under free speech.

[Syne]

Nowhere does that say that the threat must be sent

Right here dumbass:

"True Threats: The Supreme Court (Elonis v. United States) established that a "true threat" is required, meaning the sender"

Where? Doesn't say anything about being directly to the target.

"True threats include when a speaker directs a threat to a person or group of persons with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death."

I didn't post that, so I have no idea where you got it or if it's even relevant to the law I'm talking about.
You seem be be trying to pass it off as part of my post, like the liar you are. Otherwise, you should really cite your sources, lazy ass.

He didn't send it or direct it to Trump or to anyone in particular, thus making it no threat at all you stupid shit. If for example I say "somebody should assassinate the President" or indeed "86 the President" I haven't made a threat at all. I have simply expressed my opinion, which is protected under free speech.

Again, for the illiterate, nothing in the law or case precedent says it has to be directed at the target. SCOTUS precedent actually matches Comey's post:

After his wife left him and took the children, Anthony Elonis began posting on Facebook rap lyrics with violent and graphic language that threatened his wife, co-workers, an FBI agent, and a local school. Elonis was convicted under a federal statute that makes it a crime to communicate “any threat to injure the person of another,” 18 U.S.C. § 875©.
- https://www.dwt.com/blogs/media-law-moni...rue-threat

Posting on Facebook is not sending directly to the target of the threats.
Hence you're both functionally and legally illiterate.

[Magical Realist]

I didn't post that

I did dumbass. Which proves a true threat has to be sent to someone to be a threat. Otherwise no one is being threatened. You do know threaten is a verb don't you?

"To threaten is to express an intention to harm, punish, or cause damage to someone or something, or to indicate a state of imminent danger. It often involves intimidation to force action, or acting as an ominous sign of impending trouble."

Which sort of makes threatening to assassinate someone stupid doesn't it? Why would an assassin give notice of his plans?

After his wife left him and took the children, Anthony Elonis began posting on Facebook rap lyrics with violent and graphic language that threatened his wife, co-workers, an FBI agent, and a local school. Elonis was convicted under a federal statute that makes it a crime to communicate “any threat to injure the person of another,” 18 U.S.C. § 875©.- https://www.dwt.com/blogs/media-law-moni...rue-thre

Sounds like a gross miscarriage of justice. Graphic language in rap lyrics isn't in itself a threat to anybody. It's artistic expression which is totally covered under the 1st Amendment.

[Syne]

I didn't post that

I did dumbass. Which proves a true threat has to be sent to someone to be a threat. Otherwise no one is being threatened. You do know threaten is a verb don't you?

"To threaten is to express an intention to harm, punish, or cause damage to someone or something, or to indicate a state of imminent danger. It often involves intimidation to force action, or acting as an ominous sign of impending trouble."

Which sort of makes threatening to assassinate someone stupid doesn't it? Why would an assassin give notice of his plans?

You just can't help but continually prove your ignorance, huh? @_@
Here's where your unsourced quote came from, lazy ass: https://uwm.edu/freespeech/faqs/what-con...ue-threat/
It includes SCOTUS case law precedents from 1969 and 2003.

Guess what, moron? I'm citing Elonis v. United States 2015. Newer case law precedent overrides older precedent.

Newer case law precedent can and often does override older precedent. In common-law systems like the United States, higher courts (such as the Supreme Court) may depart from their own previous rulings, rendering the old precedent no longer binding, a process known as overturning or overruling.
- Gemini

You're completely ignorant of basic law. 9_9
You just think you can quote old case law or random definitions of threats... witlessly thinking they apply to 18 U.S.C. § 875(c).
Quit trying to randomly Google things you think support your argument. You're not smart enough to pull it off, Dunning-Kruger dipshit.

After his wife left him and took the children, Anthony Elonis began posting on Facebook rap lyrics with violent and graphic language that threatened his wife, co-workers, an FBI agent, and a local school. Elonis was convicted under a federal statute that makes it a crime to communicate “any threat to injure the person of another,” 18 U.S.C. § 875©.- https://www.dwt.com/blogs/media-law-moni...rue-thre

Sounds like a gross miscarriage of justice. Graphic language in rap lyrics isn't in itself a threat to anybody. It's artistic expression which is totally covered under the 1st Amendment.

He "posted the script of a sketch" by The Whitest Kids U' Know, which originally referenced saying "I want to kill the President of the United States" and replaced the president with his wife.
...
A week later, Elonis posted about local law enforcement and a kindergarten class, which caught the attention of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elonis_v._United_States

SCOTUS ruled 8-1, with two Clinton and two Obama justices. Clarence Thomas as the lone dissenting opinion.
So you go take it up with them. Apparently you think you understand the law better than lawyers and judges now. 9_9

Or maybe you should learn about what you're opining on before making a complete fool of yourself.