https://apple.news/AfLvSV9cCScK8pNA_dBzQ0w

In KY, the names and addresses of a Grand Jury are confidential and remain so. This would get the folks so posting the above information and anyone who leaked the information to the idiots doing it thrown under the jail with new cement poured.

Now, this assumes the names and addresses are the actual Grand Jury members information.

I read somewhere that the names were found on the available documents.

In other words, GA’s impeccable legal system screwed up again ( the other being the brouhaha about releasing unofficial documents).

Doc, what's your opinion on the threats of violence stirred up by Trump?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...c186e481a70739&ei=92

'What's he got to lose?' Fascism expert says Trump's only option is to 'stage a coup'
Story by Sarah K. Burris •
3h

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...1b09b8b1922b8a6&ei=8

‘I Think He’s Actually Going Insane’ Ex-Republican Congressman, Adam Kinzinger, Expresses Concern Over Trump’s Psychological Well-Being

“You see a man that is literally, I think, literally losing his mind. I don’t even mean that metaphorically. I think he’s actually going insane,” Kinzinger asserted.

If Trump is deliberately and knowingly doing this to get himself off, it will come out eventually, and he will be in worse s—t than he is now.

There are always some extremists who behave badly. It thus behooves folks in important positions to be more cautious.

I think Trump is playing games to get what he wants. He should go down hard for that. He’s made too much money playing legal gotcha games for him not to realize what he is doing.

The GOP has a lot of folks who are win at any cost in it. Trump has those folks in a bind because Trump’s followers have money and willingness to give it, and tend to say if you don’t stick by Trump, I’m giving you nothing… as opposed to folks like me who just don’t give as long as they advocate for Trump… they see the income going down, and the Trumpies saying you won’t get anything unless you support the Donald.

The political money people are in it as a job, so money is #1.

Same for the Dems, just different names and faces.

The Trump supporters need to take a good look and decide what they want.

If they think driving the bus over a cliff all in the support of Trump as they are about the man, which some few are, then we will see the implosion of the Republican Party and we will be condemned to goofy leftist government for 1-2 cycles until a new party forms.

If these folks actually are small government conservatives, they need to realize Trump has done enough that a lot of their traditional fellows are not going to support Trump and they need to get a dose of realpolitik and support the cause, not this embarrassment.

While I don’t think Trump’s crimes are the end of the Republic or as severe as the leftists claim, they are severe enough that he deserves to pay for them and just go away.


I think unless something changes (as in exculpatory evidence or a pardon), he’s going to prison for a period of time, and is going to drag some folks with him.

The idiots threatening people are going to prison as well… but some of the threats being publicly displayed aren’t really threats. Calling the judge racial epithets and saying you will work to get her impeached isn’t a threat that justifies legal action. Threatening to kill/assassinate is. Those folks deserve prison or an institution.

Trump isn't the only one who's lost his mind.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/mone...id=socialshare&ei=29

Lindsey Graham On Trump Indictments: 'If You Say You Are Cheated As A Republican, They're Going To Put You In Jail'

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...id=socialshare&ei=10

Ted Cruz was outraged over the Fulton County indictment, so people fact-checked his claims – “The rule of law matters”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...fptaskbarhover&ei=10

Rudy Giuliani's 'hubris' in Georgia RICO case torn to pieces by former prosecutor

Let us assume there are extremist who are presupposed to behave badly. The, “I can’t foresee or be, at lest, morally responsibly for what I say affecting them” does not fly.

President Trump is both a political figure with a platform and public figure. We have seen how his words inspire his followers to violence on Jan 6. President Trump has to be cognizant of the use and impact of his words. President Trump is dog whistling for mob Justice (from his followers point of view and his) to deliver him from the rule of law.

Attacking our institutions and those in place to carry out the obligations of those institutions is not a legitimate defense. Such verbiage is dangerous and undermines security and safety. It is the edge of calling for armed resolution.

Again, we have seen how language moves folks to illegal violence, see Jan 6. One cannot say, “ It is not the motivator’s fault.

I have said it before. I say it again now. Words and ideas are more dangerous than guns and bullets. Words and thoughts put the bullets in guns and hands on triggers.

Calling the Judge presiding over your case racial epithets and declaring your intention to impeach her is actionable. It is both contempt and intimidation of a person involved on legal process.

We can’t all agree with a simple two sentence, “ President Trumps should not be engaging in the speech he is concerning the officers of institutions. I disagree with it and wish he would shut up.”

Trump’s Taunts Test Limits of Release.

https://news.yahoo.com/biased-...aunts-114912788.html

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Let us assume there are extremist who are presupposed to behave badly. The, “I can’t foresee or be, at lest, morally responsibly for what I say affecting them” does not fly.

President Trump is both a political figure with a platform and public figure. We have seen how his words inspire his followers to violence on Jan 6. President Trump has to be cognizant of the use and impact of his words. President Trump is dog whistling for mob Justice (from his followers point of view and his) to deliver him from the rule of law.

Attacking our institutions and those in place to carry out the obligations of those institutions is not a legitimate defense. Such verbiage is dangerous and undermines security and safety. It is the edge of calling for armed resolution.

Again, we have seen how language moves folks to illegal violence, see Jan 6. One cannot say, “ It is not the motivator’s fault.

I have said it before. I say it again now. Words and ideas are more dangerous than guns and bullets. Words and thoughts put the bullets in guns and hands on triggers.

Calling the Judge presiding over your case racial epithets and declaring your intention to impeach her is actionable. It is both contempt and intimidation of a person involved on legal process.

We can’t all agree with a simple two sentence, “ President Trumps should not be engaging in the speech he is concerning the officers of institutions. I disagree with it and wish he would shut up.”

Is it actionable if you are not involved in the court case?

Bad behavior? Absolutely. Illegal? Only if we have lost the right to behave badly and stupidly. There were per the story I looked at quoted above folks leaving messages- the Trumpites- It was said that was an example of violence. Sorry, not in my opinion.

I don't think some guy should be thrown in jail for calling me a honkey M-Fer. Is it uncouth and should not be accepted in civil discourse? Yes. Just being an arsehole isn't illegal.

In a pissing match between Trump and a federal district court judge, I’ll take the latter. Trump may beat the rap, but he won’t beat the ride.

quote:

Calling the Judge presiding over your case racial epithets and declaring your intention to impeach her is actionable. It is both contempt and intimidation of a person involved on legal process.

I'm skeptical. It sounds like free speech to me.

Disagree: The distinction is she is presiding over his case. You cannot call a Judge presiding over your case a bitch or son racial and not be contemptible.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:


Is it actionable if you are not involved in the court case?

Bad behavior? Absolutely. Illegal? Only if we have lost the right to behave badly and stupidly. There were per the story I looked at quoted above folks leaving messages- the Trumpites- It was said that was an example of violence. Sorry, not in my opinion.

I don't think some guy should be thrown in jail for calling me a honkey M-Fer. Is it uncouth and should not be accepted in civil discourse? Yes. Just being an arsehole isn't illegal.

Doc, I seriously think you don't see the picture well. It's bigger in scope than you include in your assessments of Trump - consistently.

I argue with you specifically, out of respect, because you are one person who ought to be able to see the scope of it, being a doctor.

So, expect me to keep trying.

One thing we should be aware of is that judges - the successful ones - are in a whole different class regarding assessing or "judging" people, psychologically. Trump is a special case, for sure, and I'm sure a judge's worst or best nightmare - depending on attitude.

I'm making a fresh post in the fascist thread I started, with a deeper look. And it definitely relates to this thread and the threats and violence, and even how the country and Trump in particular got where we are.

I don’t support such actions but how is this different from all the doxxing of various individuals the Left has engaged in over the years?

Read the content and link in this post for the answer to your question.

https://forums.accuratereloadi...971055572#4971055572

The article: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...58f2f01912d431&ei=40

Also, I think the answer to your question is obvious, but then again I'm not you. What's obvious to me isn't to you, and probably vice-versa.

The situation with Trump is different in many very significant ways.

So, in addition to the above article, try this article for your answer:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...b643bcc0cfdd12&ei=52

Trump Is Going to Leave Judges With No Choice but to Hold Him in Contempt
Story by Dennis Aftergut and Frederick Baron •
2h

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:
I don’t support such actions but how is this different from all the doxxing of various individuals the Left has engaged in over the years?

Let us assume that is true, the Right is supposed to be better. I know I use to think that. That is why identified w the right.

They do x is not justification.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Disagree: The distinction is she is presiding over his case. You cannot call a Judge presiding over your case a bitch or son racial and not be contemptible.

This would be correct. You try that in any court room anywhere that I've ever set foot in and you better have an overnight bag packed.

Only in bizarre trumptard world would anybody ever think this could be acceptable behavior or try to excuse it.

quote:

They do x is not justification.

In the first article I linked in the above post the author talks about "projections".

We can see it herein if one knows what to look for. I've seen it several times, and in Trump's narratives, and Fox.

I didn't know what to make of it, just recognized it and it's too abstract to explain easily. So, I avoided it.

If you are interested, the author is far more qualified that I and he explains it well.

It's sorta like look-over-there or what-about-them, but psychologically and pathologically different in the realm of justifications and denial.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Disagree: The distinction is she is presiding over his case. You cannot call a Judge presiding over your case a bitch or son racial and not be contemptible.

This would be correct. You try that in any court room anywhere that I've ever set foot in and you better have an overnight bag packed.

Only in bizarre trumptard world would anybody ever think this could be acceptable behavior or try to excuse it.

I’m not arguing that Trump’s behavior regarding the court is not something that will get him in trouble.

I’m stating simply that an unhappy person who is not a party to the case calling the judge a racial epithet and stating that they will work/petition for the judge’s impeachment is not violence.

Trump’s acts encouraging this behavior is quite possibly contempt or worse… but The Citizen who did it is not engaging in violence or a crime, is he?

See my above critic of President Trump’s responsibility for that behavior.

A third party not before the Court is walking up to the line of a Federal Warrant calling a Fed Judge a racial epitaph. Said person touching the line would be, “ I am going to kill that x,y,z.” Or, “ Hey guys let’s plan on doing something about this Judge.” Then one of those guys goes and buys a rope and duct tape.

See the lost souls convicted of conspiring to kidnap the Michigan Governor.

quote:

Trump Is Going to Leave Judges With No Choice but to Hold Him in Contempt

Bullshit. It should already have been done several times. He hasn't paid a single penalty for his mouth, not 1 night in lockup.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
See my above critic of President Trump’s responsibility for that behavior.

A third party not before the Court is walking up to the line of a Federal Warrant calling a Fed Judge a racial epitaph. Said person touching the line would be, “ I am going to kill that x,y,z.” Or, “ Hey guys let’s plan on doing something about this Judge.” Then one of those guys goes and buys a rope and duct tape.

See the lost souls convicted of conspiring to kidnap the Michigan Governor.

If it’s walking up to the line to call someone a name because you disagree with them, we’ve lost the plot.

Similarly, it should not be considered inappropriate for anyone to call for impeachment for a perceived problem regardless of who or what. Seriously considered? That’s different. Penalties for wasting the system’s time, if it’s clearly inappropriate, maybe. You like to say it’s the process… well, the process for dealing with an abusive judge is impeachment.

As wrong as I think Trump is, he has every right to say to the judge that I am going to do my best to see you impeached.

If you put that robe on, you need to be able to handle that lots of folks are going to disagree with your judgment calls. Monday morning quarterbacking isn’t just in football.

Now, threatening to kill the judge, or physically threatening one to avoid your case, that’s certainly wrong and deserving of punishment. I’d agree that Trump making statements that he either does or a reasonable person would know would cause folks to assault the judge should be treated with appropriate punishment.

In this case, while Trump should be held accountable for death threats, he shouldn’t even be thought badly of for someone saying impeachment should happen.

I thought, despite my quoting the wrong language, that we were discussing Dr. Butler's scenario of someone not involved in the case. I think such a person could use racial epithets and threaten to impeach the judge, without crossing the line of free speech under the First Amendment.

Not so for someone involved in a case or the defendant.

And making statements about pursuing impeachment while you are before them is about as dumb as it gets as well.

That someone got Trump to shut up is a wonder.

If he has clear evidence, bring it up in court and it is done, case dismissed.

My point was entirely about outside actors.

Trump, well, he is in front of the judge and will have to abide by the court’s rules. Decorum in court is one of the rules. He can’t ignore what the judge says without facing her punishment. I’ve heard of defendants being gagged. Trump could be remanded and only be allowed in the court to testify. He’s playing with fire… even if you believe it’s all a witch hunt, you still have to play by the judge’s rules.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
I thought, despite my quoting the wrong language, that we were discussing Dr. Butler's scenario of someone not involved in the case. I think such a person could use racial epithets and threaten to impeach the judge, without crossing the line of free speech under the First Amendment.

Not so for someone involved in a case or the defendant.

I will take the heat fir any and all confusion. I am and addressed President Trump’s speech.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
See my above critic of President Trump’s responsibility for that behavior.

A third party not before the Court is walking up to the line of a Federal Warrant calling a Fed Judge a racial epitaph. Said person touching the line would be, “ I am going to kill that x,y,z.” Or, “ Hey guys let’s plan on doing something about this Judge.” Then one of those guys goes and buys a rope and duct tape.

See the lost souls convicted of conspiring to kidnap the Michigan Governor.

If it’s walking up to the line to call someone a name because you disagree with them, we’ve lost the plot.

Similarly, it should not be considered inappropriate for anyone to call for impeachment for a perceived problem regardless of who or what. Seriously considered? That’s different. Penalties for wasting the system’s time, if it’s clearly inappropriate, maybe. You like to say it’s the process… well, the process for dealing with an abusive judge is impeachment.

As wrong as I think Trump is, he has every right to say to the judge that I am going to do my best to see you impeached.

If you put that robe on, you need to be able to handle that lots of folks are going to disagree with your judgment calls. Monday morning quarterbacking isn’t just in football.

Now, threatening to kill the judge, or physically threatening one to avoid your case, that’s certainly wrong and deserving of punishment. I’d agree that Trump making statements that he either does or a reasonable person would know would cause folks to assault the judge should be treated with appropriate punishment.

In this case, while Trump should be held accountable for death threats, he shouldn’t even be thought badly of for someone saying impeachment should happen.

It is walking up to the line to target a government official discharging their duty as I described above. The two examples slid crossing the line will get you a Fed Warrant.

Threatening and interfering with a federal officer completing their duty is not “up to the line”, but rather pretty clearly crossing it.

My point is that just calling a federal officer a racial epithet or saying they should be impeached is not interfering with the completion of their duty.

Thus, I’m worried about you as a prosecutor thinking that an uninvolved person calling a judge a slur is even close to a problem is scary.

I’ve seen court transcripts where a judge was called all the names in the book and the defendant was found not guilty and not charged with contempt.

That’s an admirable justice.

When you touch the line you get the juice. My list are very clear on that.

If someone thinks after hearing President Trump speak on this Judge, they can go on Social Media, email, telephone using phrases like hang, kill, or get, then one is getting a rude knock at the door.

Calling this Judge as a non racial epithets is starting down a roan the person my find themselves rolling down.

Folks, generally build up to criminal behavior. The phrase F around and Fond out comes to mind.

I have found articles that said Trump called the black prosecutor a racist. And one where he said "a rigged election, she was an election rigger".
I cant find what he said that was racist to a black prosecutor. can you direct me to the article?

Claiming she is prosecuting him because he is white while she is black is a racist statement in itself.

TB40, from my end:

The racial slurs I was commenting on were in one of the linked articles in the thread where some idiots were calling the courthouse.

One idiot was clearly threatening the life of the judge... dumb, and in trouble.

Another used a racial slur and said they were going to see the judge impeached. While uncouth, I don't see this in and of itself as a threat.

Both were used in the article as examples of violence against the judge. My point I was trying to get across was one was a threat, the other was not. ie, the media displaying its colors with yellow journalism. Both are in the details, but not in the lead part of the story.

The part against Trump is that he is saying whatever knowing (or should know, given recent experience) that his comments will lead to this kind of behavior. That he continues to do so despite this is putting himself in jeopardy of getting the judge to do something. What, I don't know.

Pretty nice jury y'all have there, shame if anything happened to it...