Come off it. He put up a post on Twitter. That shouldn't be occasion for an interrogation. I think there's a real chance the current President is still alive because he was chosen by God to be; if that's right, all actual assassins will fail as the prior ones have for as long as that divine will continues. Some loser running his mouth, and virtually where it's even less important, isn't going to change anything.
The natural rights are what matter. That's what the government itself allegedly exists to defend. If it can't do that, or worse if it betrays them, it is without function.
Let a man speak his mind. Even if he's a jerk; a loser; a liar; a nothing without honor. Who cares what a man like that says? His words are empty, cowardly, and without meaning.
What does matter is the right to speak your mind.
29 comments:
His words are empty, cowardly, and without meaning.
Just like Bernie Sanders' words were empty--and followed by a mass murder attempt against a collection of Congressmen, one of them gravely wounded.
Just like Chuck Schumer's words were empty--and followed by an assassination attempt against a Supreme Court Justice.
For ordinary men, you're mostly right, except even for ordinary men, incitement to violence is not protected speech.
But with important men, whose words carry weight, they must be held to a higher standard; they give up some of their freedom of speech, for instance, as a result of accepting their office, just as military men and women do. Part of that higher standard is a duty of care regarding what they say or (not and) where they say it.
All three of these men knew precisely what they were saying, they knew what they were going to say when they formed the thought; none of them spoke in the heat of the moment. Each of them carefully measured their words and spoke or posted them deliberately.
Then Comey tried to delete his post, while Sanders' and Schumer's words remain fully on the record. That's Comey's cowardice, and it might rise to evidence tampering.
Eric Hines
Proof of cowardice is the opposite of evidence. A man might make real his thoughts. A coward's thoughts and wills are empty.
Still cutting me off. Gringo third attempt.
Subject Comey to an FBI interrogation. May beat the rap, but won't beat the ride.
Two separate things. Comey's cowardice is his deletion of his post. The deletion itself is what might rise to evidence tampering. In any event, a coward's thoughts and words are not empty when others act on them.
That's a side issue anyway; the main point is the rest of my comment.
Eric Hines
Gringo, the New York Post is reporting that the Secret Service is interviewing him.
Eric Hines
Charlie Martin has a different take:
https://pjmedia.com/charlie-martin/2025/05/16/lets-86-the-86-thing-mkay-n4939868
Skip the first six paragraphs of "don't hate me bro" and here's the meat of it:
"Which is why I'm afraid we're setting ourselves up to be made fools of.
"The problem, of course, is Comey's now-deleted post with the numbers "8647". The thing is, "86" is just not an explicit suggestion that Trump should be murdered. The code "86" means a lot of things: it can mean a server should know a certain menu item is not available; it can mean a brand of alcohol is not available in a bar; it can mean for the bouncer to throw out a difficult or obstreperous customer.
"But it doesn't mean to then take the customer into the alley and cut his throat. Or her throat, not to be sexist about it. And the idea that it means "take them 8 miles out and put them 6 feet under" appears to be an urban legend, relatively recent back-formation from the slang meaning for 86 that dates to the '30s.
"So, now it turns out that Comey actually has a book coming out in a few days about a Mary Sue main character who investigates, arrests, and apparently convicts a conservative radio talker of inciting a murder by dog-whistling. Coincidentally."
- Tom
Tom, I've read comments about that though I had not heard the plot of the book. Yes, Comey is going to get some free publicity out of this. He may also discover that things have changed since 2020 and he doesn't have as many friends and allies in high places as he thinks he does. I'm not sure how his critics are going to be made fools of, though. IIRC that D-list comic who posted a picture of herself with Trump's severed head wound up complaining she was only on the A-list again for a hot minute, even back when Trump was going through the wringer regularly. No doubt Comey's book will be manipulated onto the NYT best seller list for what that's worth now, but what else? I don't think he expected to get called in to the offices of the Secret Service, and I'm pretty sure that wouldn't have happened during Trump's first term.
Remember that even back in 2016 there were a lot of people mad with Comey's similarly cowardly "she's guilty but we won't prosecute" attempt to explain away Hillary's use of a home-brew email server for her SecState communication, and especially when he was forced to re-open the investigation after background copies of emails to Huma Abeden were found on the laptop the FBI seized from Anthony Weiner. Some people contend that cost Hillary the election.
The right to speak one's mind doesn't extend to death threats. But I agree this wasn't quite a death threat. It could equally be a call to action for impeachment. In any event, it's irrelevant, because the rule people are attempting to invoke does not apply to Democrats.
Just my 2 cents, but, first, there's no way anything will stick. So, Comey gets free publicity for his book and his reputation goes up in his circles -- the only reputation he cares about in my opinion -- because he'll be seen as the victim of political persecution. He will also use this as evidence that Trump doesn't really care about free speech.
Also, from watching him perform before Congress, I think he gets a thrill out of being lashed out at by powerful people who can't actually hit him. As Churchill said, “There is nothing more exhilarating than to be shot at with no result.” For Comey, I think that extends to thumbing his nose at powerful people, to their faces whenever possible.
So, this seems to me like a complete win for Comey.
“The right to speak one's mind doesn't extend to death threats.”
Not currently as a matter of law; but I think you ought to be free to say any true thing. If someone wanted to kill me, I’d rather know about it.
If someone wanted to kill me, I’d rather know about it.
So would I. But if the threat isn't face to face, but made in some separated public forum, it can incite violence by others I don't know about.
That incitement to violence is itself not protected speech.
Eric Hines
I don't know there is more we can do than keep insisting "He knew exactly what it meant and he's lying." Whether he is trolling for publicity or just signalling that he is down with the cause, trying to nail this down is going to either fail, break the law itself, or most likely, both.
It's not going to be all the effective for us to just speak the truth. But it's all we've got.
Speaking the truth is worth doing for its own sake.
Valid. The idea this is a marketing gimmick, however, may call into question his commitment to the cause, especially if his record is only speaking out when he is fairly sure of no blowback. FWIW I've seen reports both he and his wife have been questioned by the Secret Service. Maybe not a complete win.
That's true about his commitment. I have no sense of what his real commitments might be. On being questioned, maybe not a complete win, but I tend to think he'll play the victim card and portray Trump as a fascist who is persecuting his political enemies. But maybe not. Maybe he just wants to sell books.
To the title of the post, I tend to think it's wrong in general to threaten people with violence. I can imagine self-defense-like exceptions. However, moral and legal are often different things.
I think it is good to speak the truth. If it is true that I will kill you if you don’t stop threatening my wife, it is good for you to know that. This knowledge might improve outcomes for everyone.
You’re close, though, to the Nonaggression principle (NAP) which is important to libertarian and anarchist thought.
Insisting on the truth is genuinely vital. When we stop insisting, we lose.
That example falls into my self-defense exception.
Let's try something else. What if the death threat is a lie? What if someone just says the words but has no intention of carrying them out? Lying would be wrong, wouldn't it?
So, the only good death threat would be one that the issuer had the intention to act on, correct?
In this case, it's very doubtful that Comey had the intention to act on his threat. So, it was most probably wrong, wasn't it?
I mean, I think he was joking, which is generally not wrong. Speech is not, generally.
The only time I can recall ever threatening another man's life, it was because he was already threatening my only child's. My 'speech act' (as they say these days) was intended as a warning, and successfully defused the situation. It was also true: I absolutely meant it.
Would it have been wrong to lie about something like that? Yes, I suppose, only in that one ought to mean it; but it would be hard to condemn a lie if the lie succeeded in preventing the violence. If a coward bluffed you into not hurting someone, he would not have done as well as it was possible to do, but we wouldn't say he did pure wrong.
Verbally threatened, I mean. I have sometimes been practically threatening. Sometimes because I meant to be, and sometimes because people are over sensitive.
On NAP, I suspect you're right. I've been libertarian-ish for some time, though I have problems with some things, which I'm trying to work through.
I have no idea what Comey was really doing. Joking around is entirely plausible. Trying to stir up trouble is another, and the two aren't mutually exclusive. The Left has maintained an atmosphere that it would be good if someone were to kill 47, so maybe it was just his contribution to keeping that going. And maybe sell more books while he's at it.
If a coward bluffed you into not hurting someone, he would not have done as well as it was possible to do, but we wouldn't say he did pure wrong.
All warfare is based on deception, or so they say.
I think you're right about the bluff. I'm not sure the coward would be wrong at all, though we'd certainly want to see him grow in fortitude.
This bothers me. If he's a coward, would he try to bluff someone out of violence? That doesn't seem like the act of a coward.
I think I would be happier if the example were someone who was physically incapable of killing but who bluffed well enough to stop the aggressor. That would be courage, but a lie nonetheless. I'd probably praise the guy for it.
I wouldn't chase a thought experiment too far (although philosophical careers have been built on it).
A coward bluffing someone is a standard of Hollywood cinema -- especially in the old days. Your alternative also; if you reflect a bit, I think you can probably come up with examples of both from movies you know.
Sounds like good advice.
I have sometimes been practically threatening. ...sometimes because people are over sensitive.
A small side issue: I don't think you were practically (in any sense of the word) threatening in that case; the over-sensitive one was choosing to feel threatened regardless of the situation.
Eric Hines
You might be right. On the other hand, I have sometimes been pragmatically threatening even when it was not recognized. Some several have passed of L-shaped ambushes they never saw.
So perhaps I will simply be grateful to have done no more harm than I have.
" If someone wanted to kill me, I’d rather know about it."
Indeed, as you're fully capable of defending yourself. Too many are not, though. They need protecting when there are genuine threats. I might even say it's our obligation.
Post a Comment