Anti-Trump Instagram pic of seashells now enough to indict ex-FBI directors
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Threatening to wipe an entire civilization off of the planet gets a pass.
Strange.
Strange.
Upvote
280
(281
/
-1)
The legal foundation here is incredibly thin. You might say, wafer thin /Monty
In Watts v. United States (1969), the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a man who literally said he wanted to put LBJ in his rifle sights, finding it was political hyperbole protected by the First Amendment. Comey posted a photo of seashells. The standard has actually gotten harder for prosecutors since Watts: the 2023 Counterman decision requires showing that a speaker subjectively understood their message would be perceived as threatening.
Also, Matt Gaetz used "86'd" to describe ousting Republican leaders. Jack Posobiec tweeted "8646" about Biden. Neither was investigated, of course.
In Watts v. United States (1969), the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a man who literally said he wanted to put LBJ in his rifle sights, finding it was political hyperbole protected by the First Amendment. Comey posted a photo of seashells. The standard has actually gotten harder for prosecutors since Watts: the 2023 Counterman decision requires showing that a speaker subjectively understood their message would be perceived as threatening.
Also, Matt Gaetz used "86'd" to describe ousting Republican leaders. Jack Posobiec tweeted "8646" about Biden. Neither was investigated, of course.
Upvote
341
(341
/
0)
Sometimes I wish cognitive dissonance was better at asserting itself instead of just sort of dissolving in the face of ideological conviction.
I suppose growing from challenges to your worldview is reserved for us proles who aren't in charge of, for example, an entire country.
I regularly question myself and my actions even when the answer seems like it should be obvious because there is always a chance I've overlooked something. I wonder what it's like to just start from the premise that you're right about everything? Goes to the article. That's not something you can really do in wage labor and service job.
I suppose growing from challenges to your worldview is reserved for us proles who aren't in charge of, for example, an entire country.
I regularly question myself and my actions even when the answer seems like it should be obvious because there is always a chance I've overlooked something. I wonder what it's like to just start from the premise that you're right about everything? Goes to the article. That's not something you can really do in wage labor and service job.
Upvote
80
(80
/
0)
Before opening the article I thought this was going to be some weird, "He doesn't know about the three seashells," joke. But there are too many for that.
I've always known '86' in the context of banning someone from an establishment.
I've always known '86' in the context of banning someone from an establishment.
Upvote
115
(115
/
0)
I know it's just a screenshot from a video, a snapshot in time which can result in all sorts of unintended expressions on people's faces... but wow do these guys look pissed.
Upvote
58
(59
/
-1)
Does Ars, by republishing the "threatening message", face the same possibility of prosecution?
Upvote
90
(91
/
-1)
Next step: prosecuting political and personal enemies for wishing anyone else was president. After all, since the current administration is perfect and eternal, the only way there could be another president is if a crime against divinity itself is being planned.
/s ?
/s ?
Upvote
80
(80
/
0)
Can we (meaning the entire Democratic Party apparatus) finally get on the same page and admit that "when they go low, we go high" has completely and utterly failed as a political strategy and that there need to be swift and severe consequences attached to anyone within this administration and who has enabled them?
Because the longer this goes on without any real attempt at opposition, the more emboldened they will become and the quicker we get to the end stage of this, which is them erecting gallows on the National Mall and straight up hanging anyone who gets in their way or simply annoys them.
Because the longer this goes on without any real attempt at opposition, the more emboldened they will become and the quicker we get to the end stage of this, which is them erecting gallows on the National Mall and straight up hanging anyone who gets in their way or simply annoys them.
Upvote
166
(174
/
-8)
Colloquially 86 means to get rid of or cancel something. I also want to get rid of Trump. Nothing about it implies death.
Upvote
150
(150
/
0)
Upvote
111
(111
/
0)
GeckoDragon
Ars Scholae Palatinae
Probably got it confused with 'deep-6 47' which i would indeed perceive as somewhat threatening.
Actually, they're probably too stupid to know the difference
Actually, they're probably too stupid to know the difference
Upvote
33
(33
/
0)
"Ostensibly" is carrying a lot of weight in this statement -- I think it collapsed under the load.
Upvote
35
(36
/
-1)
I dunno about looking pissed more like bloated, constipated, and those monkey suits look either too small or too big for these fuckers. Guess that's what happens when you binge on TACO.
Upvote
60
(61
/
-1)
Clearly this was a full misreading of the message.
8+6=14
14*4=56
The common denominator in 8, 6, and 4 is 2.
2*7=14
56-14=42, the answer to life, the universe, and everything. Comey is simply a fan of the HHGTTG and a math nerd.
8+6=14
14*4=56
The common denominator in 8, 6, and 4 is 2.
2*7=14
56-14=42, the answer to life, the universe, and everything. Comey is simply a fan of the HHGTTG and a math nerd.
Upvote
63
(65
/
-2)
HuntingManatees
Ars Centurion
It's also short for "take this off the menu" and typically done when you're out of ingredients, or too many people are ordering a low-margin item, or you're in the weeds and don't have the time to cook a certain complicated dish.
Short of a major supply issue, at every restaurant where I've worked a dish typically went back on the menu, like, the day after an 86? It certainly wasn't "killed" -- unless the chefs and management were discussing menus, at which point the term was just portable industry jargon.
Upvote
38
(40
/
-2)
poke 532810
Ars Praetorian
Then there’s this:
However, that wasn’t the king’s enemy on the receiving end of the guillotine. And those wishing to set themselves up as a tyrannical king should remember that.
Upvote
31
(33
/
-2)
This is nothing but Trumplethinkskin using the DoJ to harass people who have pointed out his ill deeds.
If there is any justice,the judge will summarily dismiss the case (hopefully with ten or twelve "86" refereces) and enjoin the DoJ from further action against Comey.
If there is any justice,the judge will summarily dismiss the case (hopefully with ten or twelve "86" refereces) and enjoin the DoJ from further action against Comey.
Upvote
54
(54
/
0)
I learned what 86 meant in a foodservice context in an episode of Kitchen Nightmares. 86 the french fries!
Yeah, I think everybody (including the president himself) would be surprised if that weren't the outcome. The process is, of course, the punishment.
Yeah, I think everybody (including the president himself) would be surprised if that weren't the outcome. The process is, of course, the punishment.
Upvote
54
(54
/
0)
Yeah. There is a Tom Waits song about being 86ed from the heart.
Upvote
12
(12
/
0)
If there is any justice Trump and his minions will be convicted of barratry.
Upvote
25
(25
/
0)
This is a SPAPP - Strategic Prosecution Against Public Participation. If you want to say bad things about the incompetent clown, he's going to make sure it costs you personally. So now Comey has to lawyer up and deal with the trial, which personally costs him stress and money, even if the charges are laughably stupid. And it doesn't cost Donnie "Clown Shoes" Trump a dime.
Upvote
80
(80
/
0)
To "86" someone is generally understood to get rid of them. It could mean to kill them or it could mean to fire them among the meanings. Context is king of course. Regardless, the post was obviously not a threat and clearly protected speech. If this doesn't get thrown out for vindictive prosecution and goes to trial the chances of the government getting any kind of conviction are zero.
Upvote
35
(36
/
-1)
So it'll be a 10 year jail term for insulting the greatest present America ever had (like they have in Thailand for the King, his royal family, dependents, and other people who were King before?).
See https://democratic-erosion.org/2025...cebook-posts-the-implications-of-section-112/
But would Trump ever appoint his dog to oversee the Air Force though?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fufu_(dog)
Upvote
13
(14
/
-1)
The referral to court is quite justified. The moment I saw that photo I felt an almost irresistible urge to dispose of a president.
Upvote
17
(17
/
0)
But, should I change my telephone number? My telephone number has those four forbidden numbers in it, next to each other.
Upvote
26
(26
/
0)
Clearly, you should sue your phone company for trying to frame you.
Upvote
44
(44
/
0)
Upvote
26
(26
/
0)
Also, last night the DOJ submitted what was basically a Truth Social post as a legal filing in the ballroom case. Screenshot of the first page in the spoiler. Though arguably it's pre-spoiled.
Upvote
51
(51
/
0)
By this standard, I suspect most of the Trump administration could be charged with threatening people.
Upvote
36
(36
/
0)
Pretty sure you meant Trumplethinskin. There's certainly no thinking involved with Trumple.
Upvote
33
(33
/
0)