Judge orders Trump response to DOJ request for protective order in 2020 election case
Judge orders Trump response to DOJ request for protective order in 2020 election case
The federal judge presiding over former President Trump’s election fraud case has ordered his attorneys to respond to prosecutors’ request for a protective order by Monday, according to a court fil…
“Friday evening ultimatums, given by the government before even calling defense counsel, are wholly unproductive and undermine the potential for party-driven resolutions,” Trump’s attorneys responded.
Well then don't post on your 3rd rate social media platform:
“IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU!”
It's that simple.
Trump: Backsies!!!
Fed: NOPE
Ah yes, "not intended to be threatening". Such a warm, inviting thing to say.
Hi @Gargleblaster. Your submission is missing a label in the title. We also ask that users share a few paragraphs copy and pasted from the story in the body.
Please refer to our community guidelines and submission rules here: https://kbin.social/m/politics/t/239165/If-you-cannot-access-the-sidebar-please-read-our-community
Hi @HandsHurtLoL, you keep messaging me about a label, but I can't read the end of your message nor find where to respond to you.
Are you using kbin on mobile? I'm thinking maybe you're not able to see the side bar. I'll copy and paste the section regarding lables over here so you can take a look:
_Titles - Submission titles must match the source title except for the use of all capital letters. All caps titles are not permitted. Titles must include a label indicating News, Opinion/Editorial (pick the appropriate one), Analysis, or Discussion.
Glossary of terms: Editorials have author bylines that denote a collection of people within a news organization, such as candidate endorsements from a newspaper’s staff. Opinions have author bylines from a single (maybe two) writer(s). Analysis is when an author starts with factually verified current events and reports then explains deeper significance or motivation, predicts future outcomes, or makes a policy recommendation based on the starting data._
“IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU!” Trump wrote on Truth Social Friday.
The Trump campaign has since said the post was not intended to be threatening.
"IF A, [THEN] B" is the logical format here. The B statement, "I'M COMING AFTER YOU!" identifies several things:
- "I'M" identifies the actor as "the person writing the message, in this case, Donald Trump.
- "COMING AFTER" identifies the action to be undertaken by the actor. In this context, where the statement is made in correlation to federal conspiracy charges against the actor, Donald Trump, it is fair to interpret this action as "some kind of court proceeding." Whether that means civil litigation or criminal charges (when/if Trump regains the influence to press for such charges) is unclear. It could further mean Trump again marshalling his violent supporters to engage in threats of or actual physical violence. Since part of this situation includes Trump having already done that, this interpretation is tantamount to an admission by Trump that he is fully aware that he did foment a violent attempted coup on Congress on January 6, 2021. In any event, "COMING AFTER" suggests a set of circumstances which will be undesired by and possibly harmful to the object of the action.
- "YOU" defines the object of the statement, "whoever is reading this."
- Furthermore, the "ALL CAPS" and "!" connote at least a sense of urgency, or an heightened level of gravity to the statement.
So, translated, "I'M COMING AFTER YOU!" in this case means "Donald Trump intends to make undesirable and possibly harmful things happen to the person reading this post." All by itself, that is a threat.
But there is the qualifying "A" statement, "YOU GO AFTER ME." As above:
- The actor is "YOU," whoever is reading this statement, or whoever meets the qualification laid out by the statement.
- The action is "GO AFTER," again, cause undesirable or harmful things to happen.
- The object is "ME," the person writing the message, Donald Trump.
Let's run it all together:
"If a person causes undesirable and possibly harmful things to happen to Donald Trump, then Donald Trump will cause undesirable and possibly harmful things to happen to that person."
Strictly speaking, this statement does not preclude Donal Trump from causing undesirable and possible harmful things to happen to a given person even if that person does not cause such things to happen to Donald Trump - only that if you cause such things, then Donald Trump will cause such things to happen to you. But in general, and if/then statement like this tends to include the subtext of "If not A, then not B."
This statement is a threat; that is undeniable. Is it possible for the statement, while clearly being threatening, to not have been intended to be threatening? I don't think intent is even relevant. As an analogy, if you have an understanding of what handguns do, and you point a handgun that you know to be loaded at someone's head, and you pull the trigger, and the person you are pointing at is shot and killed, you do not get a free pass if you just say "I didn't intend to kill them."
Donald Trump has a firm enough grasp on the English language and the context in which he used it to understand that when he publically announced, "IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I'M COMING AFTER YOU!" could and would be received as a threat, and he chose to make that announcement. If he "really" had some other intent, or if the act of making that statement with full knowledge that it could and would be received as a threat is itself proof of threatening intent doesn't matter anywhere near as much as the threatening statement having been made.