Senate Democrat says threat level ‘went through the roof’ after Trump’s posts
“We've had hundreds and hundreds, if not, you know, closer to 1,000 threats," Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) told NBC News.
Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) said the number of threats against her exploded after Donald Trump posted social media messages targeting Democrats on Thursday.
“We’ve had hundreds and hundreds, if not, you know, closer to 1,000 threats,” Slotkin, one of the six Democrats featured in a video that provoked Trump’s ire, told NBC News’s Ryan Nobles.
On Thursday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said they’d looked into security for the lawmakers who appeared in a video released earlier this week. In the video, Slotkin and five other Democratic veterans and former intelligence officers reminded service members that they could “refuse illegal orders” from the administration.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/elissa-slotkin-trump-video-threats_n_691ffeb0e4b071a086baaa36Open linkView original on lemmy.world
well, i sure am grateful that the fbi and doj will be fully investigating and arresting these people threatening congress….
for real it can’t be that hard to do… i bet the majority of them don’t know how to use proxies or leaked their identities somewhere…
yet i never hear about them being prosecuted.
Trump would just pardon them anyway
Are there no state-level crimes to charge them with?
I'm not really sure how locality plays into that. If this all happened in DC then there is no state government to handle the situation. Perhaps the state governments of the state that either the congress member or the person threatening them is from could prosecute them but I'm honestly not sure.
Then we know their names.
That might be useful information if the left could muster the courage to do something more than talk shit about them on Twitter
“Anyway”? So it’s not worth following through on?
I mean, Trump controls all the departments that would be involved in that process so it's not really a matter of worthiness at all. Criminals don't investigate themselves with any kind of impartiality. But, if you were to somehow convince the DOJ to follow through and convict these people against Trump's wishes he would just pardon them. That's the reality of the situation. The ideal outcome isn't anywhere near this picture.
Yes, but a pardon implies the process worked. And I think it’s important because sane people will understand the outcome.
But I guess, as others have pointed out, that’s not justice. So prosecution post the possibility of pardon does make sense.
What a fucked up situation.
If you can't play the roll of party loyalist, you're not working for the DOJ. I'm fine waiting until that is over to begin prosecutions
This is supposedly fine, but people saying Charlie Kirk was an asshole who didn't deserve life or sympathy are "inciting violence".
And now Charlie's in Heaven and is the patron saint of FAFO.
Naw, just kidding, he's burning eternally along with all the other sanctimonious hypocrites.
Nah, those places dont exist
We can only hope. I'm not counting on it though.
Who is saying what part about this is fine?
Have you not noticed that republicans will defend literally anything Trump does?
Got it, ty.
Unfortunately there was No Way to KNOW nor PREVENT this From happening! Oh well, let's send a VERY STRONG Letter, do EVERYTHING Trump says, and head Back to Minnesota!
Even if the government remained in shutdown this would probably all still be happening. Dems have no power.
They could refuse illegal orders???
Aren’t they required to refuse illegal orders under the USMJ and the constitution?
Honestly, it's a legal grey area, especially if those orders come from the President. However that is absolutely not the mind frame conservatives are engaging this with. It's just good old-fashioned hate of the other.
The YouTube channel Legal Eagle did an interesting video on it. Link
It's pretty clear what is legal and what isn't here. The president is not above the law, and many of his decisions/actions have been deemed illegal by the actual court system.
Servicemen were dishonorably discharged for refusing to deploy to Iraq.
Shooting at civilians is obviously illegal. Soldiers must disobey such an order.
However, there are many circumstances where there isn't an obvious crime. A soldier who disobeys an order not obviously illegal assumes the risk of punishment
Aren’t those democratic voters so violent!
Democrats chose not to throw him in prison for treason when they had the chance. They were also sitting on a mountain of evidence of child sexual assault and sex trafficking and they chose not to prosecute for that either. Thanks guys it’s almost like this was preventable.
"Democrats are way more electable then progressives."
doesn't get elected
I will not be voting for her next year.
Don't forget that if your preference doesn't win the democratic primary you can run a spoiler candidate. Thanks, blue conservatives, for granting us all permission to do so through your actions in the NYC mayoral race.
First-past-the-post voting is a joke of a voting system, fitting for the clown country we have always been.
::: spoiler Electoral Reform Videos
First Past The Post voting (What most states use now)
Videos on alternative electoral systems
STAR voting
Alternative vote
Ranked Choice voting
Range Voting
Single Transferable Vote
Mixed Member Proportional representation :::
I'm not exactly sure the point that you're trying to make?
She's received death threats.
...but she voted with Trump
Therefore: ???
I guess my take-away was that Democrats should stop making concessions and attempting to work with this hostile administration, as if the administration were acting in good faith. If you make those concessions, you're still just as likely to end up with a target on your back and 1000s of death threats if you don't continue to roll over the next time. I feel like this should have been obvious to Democrats already, though.
I don't know the details or the bills, but it isn't uncommon for people in contested seats to be allowed by the party to vote in a poll-favorable way when their vote won't change the outcome.
Simply, counting 'Times voted with Trump' doesn't say much that is useful and can be misleading, especially in the context of a post about death threats to politicians.
Social media can have a very us or them mentality. If you're not 100% lock step with the group then you're an enemy to be scored and attacked. I read that comment as 'Yeah, they're getting death threats but they voted with Trump so they deserved it ()".
For context, these Democrats voted to end the government shutdown. It was largely viewed by the public as being the Republicans fault, as they hold control of the House and Senate and the office of the President. Dems were holding out for a renewal of subsidies for healthcare costs, where if the subsidies lapsed then many would see their health insurance premiums double, triple or worse. There wasn't much incentive for the Democrats to make any concessions. Yet, for a few crumbs, they gave away their only leverage for retaining those subsidies, on the promise that there would be a vote. A vote which will not pass. If it were going to pass, they would have ended the shutdown.
Your interpretation of the original comment was fair, and I agree with you. Death threats are unacceptable.
Edit: I was wrong. Slotkin wasn't one of the Dems who voted to end the shutdown.
I certainly agree that appeasing Trump isn't going to work.
A thread about death threats on these members isn't the proper context to bring up that kind of argument.
This situation isn't a result of them voting on the CR so that comment is, at best, bad taste and at worst a toxic attempt at sowing division.
Apparently the orange traitor learned from Jan 6!that he can get away with even the worst crimes. That plausible deniability is microscopically thin
I'm honestly worried one or more of these Democrat lawmakers is going to be murdered. Wouldn't be the first time this year.