Are you really perpetrating violence on a sitting US POTUS on a public forum?
www.fbi.gov
Reported to the FBI.
You just suggested that Trump should have been shot. The same rule opposes that. I suggest you go first and amend your own post.
Not really.I see that two former Presidents and two former Vice Presidents are in that pew.
How incredibly strange and sinister that they would have such seating. For a former vice President.
Definitely a plot to take over the world. Clearly the doings of Antifa and George Soros.
MAGA is chuck-full of neocons.
Neocons are NeverTrumpers.
lol. Good one. The punishment for Treason is death. The punishment for posting on a message board is having to read your nonsense posts, which may be worse, but not death. Mine was aligned with the law. His was not.Are you really perpetrating violence on a sitting US POTUS on a public forum?
Contact Us | Federal Bureau of Investigation
Please contact your local FBI office to submit a tip or report a crime. Use our online form to file electronically or call the appropriate toll-free number.
legalclarity.org
He could choose to not go. But it is now apparent that Pence is a deep state POS.
It was never not apparent that he was deep state.
hey gator how come your party couldnt beat this traitor and insurrectionist?.....what the hell is wrong with you people?..
Pence helped undermine Trump.
Since "should have" is past tense, it's not a direct threat like I'm fixin' to.Coverage Under Federal Law
18 U.S.C. 871 criminalizes threats against the President, Vice President, and other high-ranking officials. The law applies to any individual who “knowingly and willfully” threatens to take the life of, inflict bodily harm upon, or kidnap these officials. Unlike state laws addressing general threats or harassment, this statute specifically protects national leaders due to the security risks they face. Threats communicated in writing, electronically, or verbally can qualify if they meet the legal threshold of a true threat.
Courts have ruled that a statement must be serious enough to be perceived as an actual threat rather than political rhetoric or hyperbole. In Watts v. United States (1969), the Supreme Court found that a statement made at a public rally did not constitute a true threat because of its political context. Subsequent rulings reinforced that vague or conditional statements without a clear intent to cause harm may not meet the legal standard for prosecution.
Threats made through social media posts, emails, and text messages have been used as evidence in prosecutions. Courts examine whether the accused intended to communicate a threat and whether a reasonable person would interpret it as a serious expression of intent to harm. The rise of online threats has led to increased federal investigations, with agencies such as the Secret Service and FBI monitoring public statements.
18 U.S.C. 871: Federal Law on Threats Against the President
Learn how federal law defines and prosecutes threats against the U.S. President, including key legal elements, investigative processes, and potential penalties.
