Jurors in Roger Stone case say Trump and Stone are putting them in danger. They are being threatened and harassed

[HomerJS]

Mob like tactics being employed by Stone, Trump and his minions.

Trump Has Roger Stone Jurors Fearing for Their Safety: ‘It Seems Like Danger Is Coming to Me’

"I am frightened that someone could harm my family simply because I was summoned and then chosen to serve on the jury," one juror said

www.yahoo.com

 

[hal2kilo]

Mob like tactics being employed by Stone, Trump and his minions.

Trump Has Roger Stone Jurors Fearing for Their Safety: ‘It Seems Like Danger Is Coming to Me’

"I am frightened that someone could harm my family simply because I was summoned and then chosen to serve on the jury," one juror said

www.yahoo.com

Remember when witness tampering was considered a crime.

 

[Vic]

MAGAs proving yet again that they believe that free speech is only for MAGAs.

 

[dawp]

Remember when witness tampering was considered a crime.

jury tampering was too

 

[Moonbeam]

Typical scum behavior. Too privilaged to know anything about accountability.

 

[interchange]

I'm having a little trouble understanding what's happening here. From what I gather, it seems the concern is over tweets by Trump and comments/efforts by conspiracy theorist conservative personalities. I did not know that someone was trying to unmask their identity. That is certainly a ridiculous and unsafe proposition, but I also think it will therefore have no hope of succeeding. Still, I can understand the jurors feeling personally afraid regardless of whether their identity as jurors is likely to be exposed. It still would be nice to see if any specific threats were made. Saying mean things in public about jurors in general without threats is still likely free speech. It's a reprehensible thing to do, mind you, and I think there is ample reason to feel that bodily threat is likely should their identities be exposed. But is riling up your supporters without calling for specific action something you are personally liable for if it happens?

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm having a little trouble understanding what's happening here. From what I gather, it seems the concern is over tweets by Trump and comments/efforts by conspiracy theorist conservative personalities. I did not know that someone was trying to unmask their identity. That is certainly a ridiculous and unsafe proposition, but I also think it will therefore have no hope of succeeding. Still, I can understand the jurors feeling personally afraid regardless of whether their identity as jurors is likely to be exposed. It still would be nice to see if any specific threats were made. Saying mean things in public about jurors in general without threats is still likely free speech. It's a reprehensible thing to do, mind you, and I think there is ample reason to feel that bodily threat is likely should their identities be exposed. But is riling up your supporters without calling for specific action something you are personally liable for if it happens?

Not in a legal sense. OTOH. it's actually a form of stochastic terrorism. It moves the Overton window in the direction of stupidity & violence. Practitioners know that full well.

 

[darkswordsman17]

I'm having a little trouble understanding what's happening here. From what I gather, it seems the concern is over tweets by Trump and comments/efforts by conspiracy theorist conservative personalities. I did not know that someone was trying to unmask their identity. That is certainly a ridiculous and unsafe proposition, but I also think it will therefore have no hope of succeeding. Still, I can understand the jurors feeling personally afraid regardless of whether their identity as jurors is likely to be exposed. It still would be nice to see if any specific threats were made. Saying mean things in public about jurors in general without threats is still likely free speech. It's a reprehensible thing to do, mind you, and I think there is ample reason to feel that bodily threat is likely should their identities be exposed. But is riling up your supporters without calling for specific action something you are personally liable for if it happens?

What, why? You know they literally did that shit with the whistleblower in Turmp's attempt to strongarm Ukraine into playing his political bullshit, right? The whackos were howling for it so Republican politicians then actively sought it out as well. And I think there's been others in fairly recent history. Not to mention the fucking psychopaths are prone to acting on this shit, as seen by the dipshit that shot up Comet Ping Pong.

You're also ignoring that this type of behavior dosn't have to succeed in the specific sense in order to succeed at the larger, which is to ruin the justice system.

This should be rubuked hard. As in, we should have the other two branches saying that a President talking that type of shit is wholly unfit for that office.

 

[JEDIYoda]

What, why? You know they literally did that shit with the whistleblower in Turmp's attempt to strongarm Ukraine into playing his political bullshit, right? The whackos were howling for it so Republican politicians then actively sought it out as well. And I think there's been others in fairly recent history. Not to mention the fucking psychopaths are prone to acting on this shit, as seen by the dipshit that shot up Comet Ping Pong.

You're also ignoring that this type of behavior dosn't have to succeed in the specific sense in order to succeed at the larger, which is to ruin the justice system.

This should be rubuked hard. As in, we should have the other two branches saying that a President talking that type of shit is wholly unfit for that office.

Interchange is slyly playing both sides again......

 

[Gabe323]

They would already be dead with Biden as President.

 

[JEDIYoda]

They would already be dead with Biden as President.

Hate much? You cannot back that up with any proof...other than your misguided hatred....

 

[hal2kilo]

They would already be dead with Biden as President.

Triggered.

 

[Gabe323]

It's called sarcasm man.

 

[dank69]

It's called sarcasm man.

Never tell them. Let them figure it out for themselves.

 

[interchange]

What, why? You know they literally did that shit with the whistleblower in Turmp's attempt to strongarm Ukraine into playing his political bullshit, right? The whackos were howling for it so Republican politicians then actively sought it out as well. And I think there's been others in fairly recent history. Not to mention the fucking psychopaths are prone to acting on this shit, as seen by the dipshit that shot up Comet Ping Pong.

You're also ignoring that this type of behavior dosn't have to succeed in the specific sense in order to succeed at the larger, which is to ruin the justice system.

This should be rubuked hard. As in, we should have the other two branches saying that a President talking that type of shit is wholly unfit for that office.

Interchange is slyly playing both sides again......

What do y'all propose as a remedy in our society for such problems? When a leader incites people to violence or fear of violence but does not direct it themselves?

It's a huge fucking problem. Don't mistake me on that. The difficulty I am having is principally that a market for this behavior exists to such a degree in the first place.

 

[IronWing]

Never tell them. Let them figure it out for themselves.

That's my position.

 

[IronWing]

It's a huge fucking problem. Don't mistake me on that. The difficulty I am having is principally that a market for this behavior exists to such a degree in the first place.

That goes back to the wealthy sucking ever more wealth out of the system and destroying the economic aspirations and economic and social security (not program, but actual social security) of what was once the lower middle class. Folks are disillusioned and scared.

 

[interchange]

That goes back to the wealthy sucking ever more wealth out of the system and destroying the economic aspirations and economic and social security (not program, but actual social security) of what was once the lower middle class. Folks are disillusioned and scared.

Then what would you have for our society that makes things different?

 

[IronWing]

Then what would you have for our society that makes things different?

On attacking wealth: restore the progressive income tax, tax capital gains as regular income, restore the inheritance tax (this is the big one), rationalize policies on corporate welfare (determine when corporate welfare in the public interest and when it isn't), reform IP laws to put an end to perpetual rent collection.

On rebuilding the middle class and lifting the impoverished class: tuition-free post-secondary education at any age (include trade school, tech schools, college), universal single payer health insurance and if that doesn't bring costs down then nationalize the whole system ala the UK,.

We also need to rebuild our social infrastructure. How to do this, I'm not sure. Hyper-individualism has produced distrust and a breakdown of communities.

 

[JEDIYoda]

On attacking wealth: restore the progressive income tax, tax capital gains as regular income, restore the inheritance tax (this is the big one), rationalize policies on corporate welfare (determine when corporate welfare in the public interest and when it isn't), reform IP laws to put an end to perpetual rent collection.

On rebuilding the middle class and lifting the impoverished class: tuition-free post-secondary education at any age (include trade school, tech schools, college), universal single payer health insurance and if that doesn't bring costs down then nationalize the whole system ala the UK,.

We also need to rebuild our social infrastructure. How to do this, I'm not sure. Hyper-individualism has produced distrust and a breakdown of communities.

all in all a very good start!!

 

[Moonbeam]

But is riling up your supporters without calling for specific action something you are personally liable for if it happens?

Are you asking this as a matter of law or as a matter of ethics in responding to it? It seems that the notion of good and evil create a deep conundrum. Good is limited to the good while evil can do anything. How then can good respond to evil and not become evil itself. This to me is the very question of existence, the question posed in 'To Be or Not To Be'. It strikes me as a question of the mind caught up in the past, required by the thought process itself, a state that does not exist in the act of being. My guess is that evil gets a very big surprise when it runs up against such being.

 

[Muse]

Never tell them. Let them figure it out for themselves.

I thought it missed the sarcasm target by about 2 yards. It was beyond my peripheral vision spectrum. Gotta see my optometrist.

 

[soulcougher73]

Nothing new for team Trump. Lost count of how many times they’ve done this.

 

[MtnMan]

Trump is just another completely corrupt mob boss, without the ethics or courage that most mob bosses exhibited.