“We've had hundreds and hundreds, if not, you know, closer to 1,000 threats," Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) told NBC News.

Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) said the number of threats against her exploded after Donald Trump posted social media messages targeting Democrats on Thursday.

“We’ve had hundreds and hundreds, if not, you know, closer to 1,000 threats,” Slotkin, one of the six Democrats featured in a video that provoked Trump’s ire, told NBC News’s Ryan Nobles.

On Thursday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said they’d looked into security for the lawmakers who appeared in a video released earlier this week. In the video, Slotkin and five other Democratic veterans and former intelligence officers reminded service members that they could “refuse illegal orders” from the administration.

all 36 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 102 points 11 months ago (9 children)

well, i sure am grateful that the fbi and doj will be fully investigating and arresting these people threatening congress….

for real it can’t be that hard to do… i bet the majority of them don’t know how to use proxies or leaked their identities somewhere…
yet i never hear about them being prosecuted.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 33 points 11 months ago (8 children)

    Trump would just pardon them anyway

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Are there no state-level crimes to charge them with?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago

    I'm not really sure how locality plays into that. If this all happened in DC then there is no state government to handle the situation. Perhaps the state governments of the state that either the congress member or the person threatening them is from could prosecute them but I'm honestly not sure.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    “Anyway”? So it’s not worth following through on?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    I mean, Trump controls all the departments that would be involved in that process so it's not really a matter of worthiness at all. Criminals don't investigate themselves with any kind of impartiality. But, if you were to somehow convince the DOJ to follow through and convict these people against Trump's wishes he would just pardon them. That's the reality of the situation. The ideal outcome isn't anywhere near this picture.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago*

    Yes, but a pardon implies the process worked. And I think it’s important because sane people will understand the outcome.

    But I guess, as others have pointed out, that’s not justice. So prosecution post the possibility of pardon does make sense.

    What a fucked up situation.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 52 points 11 months ago (6 children)

    This is supposedly fine, but people saying Charlie Kirk was an asshole who didn't deserve life or sympathy are "inciting violence".

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    And now Charlie's in Heaven and is the patron saint of FAFO.

    Naw, just kidding, he's burning eternally along with all the other sanctimonious hypocrites.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    They could refuse illegal orders???

    Aren’t they required to refuse illegal orders under the USMJ and the constitution?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 child)

    Honestly, it's a legal grey area, especially if those orders come from the President. However that is absolutely not the mind frame conservatives are engaging this with. It's just good old-fashioned hate of the other.

    The YouTube channel Legal Eagle did an interesting video on it. Link

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago

    Servicemen were dishonorably discharged for refusing to deploy to Iraq.

    Shooting at civilians is obviously illegal. Soldiers must disobey such an order.

    However, there are many circumstances where there isn't an obvious crime. A soldier who disobeys an order not obviously illegal assumes the risk of punishment

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 24 points 11 months ago

    Aren’t those democratic voters so violent!

  • source
  • [–] 18 points 11 months ago* (1 child)

    Democrats chose not to throw him in prison for treason when they had the chance. They were also sitting on a mountain of evidence of child sexual assault and sex trafficking and they chose not to prosecute for that either. Thanks guys it’s almost like this was preventable.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 48 points 11 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 10 points 11 months ago*

    Apparently the orange traitor learned from Jan 6!that he can get away with even the worst crimes. That plausible deniability is microscopically thin

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 11 months ago

    I'm honestly worried one or more of these Democrat lawmakers is going to be murdered. Wouldn't be the first time this year.

  • source
  • [+] 13 points 11 months ago (7 children)
  • [–] 7 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    I will not be voting for her next year.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago*

    Don't forget that if your preference doesn't win the democratic primary you can run a spoiler candidate. Thanks, blue conservatives, for granting us all permission to do so through your actions in the NYC mayoral race.

    First-past-the-post voting is a joke of a voting system, fitting for the clown country we have always been.

    Electoral Reform Videos

    First Past The Post voting (What most states use now)

    Videos on alternative electoral systems

    STAR voting

    Alternative vote

    Ranked Choice voting

    Range Voting

    Single Transferable Vote

    Mixed Member Proportional representation

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    I'm not exactly sure the point that you're trying to make?

    She's received death threats.

    ...but she voted with Trump

    Therefore: ???

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    I guess my take-away was that Democrats should stop making concessions and attempting to work with this hostile administration, as if the administration were acting in good faith. If you make those concessions, you're still just as likely to end up with a target on your back and 1000s of death threats if you don't continue to roll over the next time. I feel like this should have been obvious to Democrats already, though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    I don't know the details or the bills, but it isn't uncommon for people in contested seats to be allowed by the party to vote in a poll-favorable way when their vote won't change the outcome.

    Simply, counting 'Times voted with Trump' doesn't say much that is useful and can be misleading, especially in the context of a post about death threats to politicians.

    Social media can have a very us or them mentality. If you're not 100% lock step with the group then you're an enemy to be scored and attacked. I read that comment as 'Yeah, they're getting death threats but they voted with Trump so they deserved it ()".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 child)

    For context, these Democrats voted to end the government shutdown. It was largely viewed by the public as being the Republicans fault, as they hold control of the House and Senate and the office of the President. Dems were holding out for a renewal of subsidies for healthcare costs, where if the subsidies lapsed then many would see their health insurance premiums double, triple or worse. There wasn't much incentive for the Democrats to make any concessions. Yet, for a few crumbs, they gave away their only leverage for retaining those subsidies, on the promise that there would be a vote. A vote which will not pass. If it were going to pass, they would have ended the shutdown.

    Your interpretation of the original comment was fair, and I agree with you. Death threats are unacceptable.

    Edit: I was wrong. Slotkin wasn't one of the Dems who voted to end the shutdown.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago

    I certainly agree that appeasing Trump isn't going to work.

    A thread about death threats on these members isn't the proper context to bring up that kind of argument.

    This situation isn't a result of them voting on the CR so that comment is, at best, bad taste and at worst a toxic attempt at sowing division.

  • source
  • parent