re: Trump: “The traitors that told the military to disobey my orders should be in jail”

quote:

---

Are you suggesting I just followed orders is a adequate defense?

---

Clearly not, which is part of their message you're melting about.

No melting just trying to see why playing political games with enlisted forces give you a hard on.

Really so you believe the dems made that video for pure reasons as it pertains to enlisted forces?

So the by product of this doesn't matter to you at all.

I told you why they did it.

You prefer to think they did it to troll.

So much easier for 4indy that way.

Your suggesting they did it for TD to melt.

Beautiful

You’re whining about “playing politics” when “your side” took almost every deployed general and put them in one spot, and also announced to the world the date and time.

Omg a meeting how terrible!

Never been to a Commander's Call have you Joey?

quote:

---

Again, what is illegal about saying to follow the law and Constitution?

---

Wrong question
The correct question is does messaging trump exact words?

United States v. Elonis - His words looked like rap lyrics, courts examined whether the meaning, in context, was a “true threat.”
The Supreme Court affirmed the principle that contextual meaning matters and doesn't require explicit wording.

Virginia v. Black - Cross-burning vs true threats. The Court held you don’t need the words “I will kill you.” A cross burning may itself convey a threatening meaning depending on context. Meaning can be implicit, symbolic, and historically loaded.

United States v. Jeffries (2012) Musician made a YouTube video directed at a judge in a custody dispute. The video did not contain an explicit threat, but its imagery and tone conveyed a true threat. Conviction upheld because the reasonable meaning was threatening, even if phrased as "artistic expression."

Mafia & Organized Crime Cases (multiple): John Gotti, Vincent “The Chin” Gigante, Whitey Bulger. Phrases like “take care of him,” “straighten this out,” or “he won’t be a problem” were interpreted as orders to commit violence, supported by context and pattern of behavior. Courts explicitly instruct juries that they may interpret the meaning of "coded speech."

United States v. Hansen -The Supreme Court noted that a person can “encourage or induce” a crime without explicit wording—the conviction depended on the meaning conveyed by his solicitations.

Fraud Cases: United States v. Weimert - The defendant did not make literal false statements, but created a misleading impression.
The Seventh Circuit held that fraud can be proved by what the words meant to a reasonable listener.

United States v. Abu Ali - Ali used indirect phrasing (“take action,” “prepare for the operation”). Conviction based on meaning, not literal wording.

Witness Tampering Cases: United States v. Jackson - Jackson told a witness: “You know what happens if you talk.”

I can do this all effing day

quote:

---

Wrong question

---

quote:

---

It's been days and you've yet to answer that directly.

---

quote:

---

United States v. Elonis - His words looked like rap lyrics, courts examined whether the meaning, in context, was a “true threat.”
The Supreme Court affirmed the principle that contextual meaning matters and doesn't require explicit wording.

Virginia v. Black - Cross-burning vs true threats. The Court held you don’t need the words “I will kill you.” A cross burning may itself convey a threatening meaning depending on context. Meaning can be implicit, symbolic, and historically loaded.

United States v. Jeffries (2012) Musician made a YouTube video directed at a judge in a custody dispute. The video did not contain an explicit threat, but its imagery and tone conveyed a true threat. Conviction upheld because the reasonable meaning was threatening, even if phrased as "artistic expression."

Mafia & Organized Crime Cases (multiple): John Gotti, Vincent “The Chin” Gigante, Whitey Bulger. Phrases like “take care of him,” “straighten this out,” or “he won’t be a problem” were interpreted as orders to commit violence, supported by context and pattern of behavior. Courts explicitly instruct juries that they may interpret the meaning of "coded speech."

United States v. Hansen -The Supreme Court noted that a person can “encourage or induce” a crime without explicit wording—the conviction depended on the meaning conveyed by his solicitations.

Fraud Cases: United States v. Weimert - The defendant did not make literal false statements, but created a misleading impression.
The Seventh Circuit held that fraud can be proved by what the words meant to a reasonable listener.

United States v. Abu Ali - Ali used indirect phrasing (“take action,” “prepare for the operation”). Conviction based on meaning, not literal wording.

Witness Tampering Cases: United States v. Jackson - Jackson told a witness: “You know what happens if you talk.”

---

How many of these included specific, lawful generic language in the message?

quote:

---

I can do this all effing day

---

Yes you can find as many irrelevant examples as you want.

They just lack value.

Relevant examples are much more impactful...and rare.

quote:

---

How many of these included specific, lawful generic language in the message?

---

Every single one

As a non-lawyer, I can cite 50 or 60 more cases EASILY.
Your linguistic approach here is a loser.

Fall back to Legislative Branch protections.