Man Sentenced to 15 Months in Prison for Threatening Congresswoman

According to the Indictment in U.S. v. Comiskey, the defendant tweeted, about Rep. Lauren Boebert,

• "If I ever saw Lauren I'd be glad to take her out and go to prison. Would be job well done."
• "Don't worry Lauren, someone is coming soon to show your face the 2nd amendment in practice with a copper jacket. Enjoy."
• "Someone needs to put Lauren down like a sick dog. She is a true waste of life! Someone exercise their 2nd amendment right to her face! Since the @CIA is a failure and @FBI is incompetent at charging her for being a terrorist it's time to do it ourselves! Pew pew Lauren."
• "I got my 2 amendment tool all ready to destroy Lauren's face! Hopefully in  front of her kids."
• "[D]on't come to Florida us libs have big guns here and we stand out [sic] ground. Take you down like Trayvon."

Defendant pleaded guilty (and was sentenced Monday), so we don't have more detailed facts about the context here. But on its face, these do indeed seem like constitutionally unprotected "true threats" of criminal conduct. And the court agreed that the indictment sufficiently alleged true threats, despite defendant's argument "that two of the Twitter posts contain conditional statements, while another does not indicate that Defendant 'personally' threatened to shoot the Representative."

Annika Marie Miranda, Karla Albite & Yara Klukas represent the government.

Comments

[Longtobefree]

"Annika Marie Miranda, Karla Albite & Yara Klukas represent the government."

Wait, it takes three government lawyers to deal with a guilty plea?

[Dr. Ed 2]

The indictment was dated May 26, 2022 for tweets dated August & September of 2021, so there may have been turnover as the two names at the top differ from the one at the bottom.

The three questions I ask are:
1: If these were considered real threats, why wait 9 months before indicting him? Threats are clear and imminent and 9 months is a long time for them to be acted on.

2: If he was denied bail, is this a sentence for "time served" -- 85% of 18 months is 12.75 months, which is just about what it's been since he was indicted when you figure it will take the BoP a couple of weeks to do the paperwork.

3: "...defendant shall forfeit to the United States any property, real or personal,which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to such offense...."

Hmmmm.....

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well, I was wrong, he apparently was out on bail. I'd love to know what property the Feds intend to seize...

See: https://news.yahoo.com/threatened-u-rep-lauren-boebert-091214461.html?ref=upstract.com

[Magister]

That might just be common boilerplate for any conviction. I suppose if someone sent him money to make those threats, he would have to give it up.

[Krychek_2]

Or possibly the computer used to make the threats.

[Magister]

Sounds more like the means of committing the offense than proceeds traceable to such offense.

[John F. Carr]

The second, third, and fifth statements do not strike me as true threats. The first and fourth should be enough to send the case to a jury.

[bernard11]

The fifth sounds like a threat to me.

And I might consider the 2nd and 3rd as threats in the context of the others.

How do people get to be such assholes?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Are you not seeing the language being used by the Democrat thought-leaders?

[CJColucci]

Matt. 7:1-5.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'm more inclined to skip down to verse 15: “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.”

Has anyone on the right called for the assassination of President Biden, or gone on TV(?) with a bloody mockup of his decapitated head? The left DID that, and more.

How many cities did the supporters of Ashley Babbit burn down?
How many conservatives set up bail funds for those arrested in the mahem?

[Magister]

Donald Trump campaigning in 2016 told his supporters that if Clinton became president, there would be nothing they could do about the Supreme Court — except for the Second Amendment people. (That was in between calls to “lock her up!” from the man who now thinks he should not be prosecuted for his own crimes.)

Kansas man charged with threatening Biden’s life:
https://www.axios.com/2022/01/29/biden-threat-charge
Mostly extreme conservatives were too busy threatening to kill Pence and members of Congress on January 6th. Per capita, the January 6th insurrectionists caused more damage than BLM protesters (and some of the damage during BLM protests can be laid to conservatives trying to discredit them).

Large amounts raised by conservatives to defend those January 6th defendants, but conservatives being stupid, they mostly gave their money to Donald Trump who promised to defend his supporters who got violent on his behalf.

There was even some clown in the VC comments who wanted liberals to swing from lampposts, as I recall. CJColluci’s reference would serve you better than your own, Dr Ed 2, but perhaps consider who here is a ravening wolf in sheep’s clothing.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Wanted" or "expected"?

[Magister]

That would be the sheep's clothing.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

There was even some clown in the VC comments who wanted liberals to swing from lampposts, as I recall.

Examples of the conservative commentary regularly inspired by the white, male, gun- and bigot-hugging Volokh Conspiracy:

-- liberal judges should be gassed
-- liberals should be shot in the face when opening their front doors
-- liberals should be raped
-- liberals should be sent to Zyklon showers
-- liberals should be hung from lamp posts
-- liberals should be lined up and shot
-- liberals should be pushed through woodchippers
-- liberals should be fed to starving dogs
-- liberals should be exterminated
-- liberals should be placed face-down in landfills

The Federalist Society law professors who operate the Volokh Conspiracy intentionally attract, cultivate and lather the disaffected conservative audience that (predictably, by now) writes these comments. Can anyone remember a Volokh Conspirator objecting to, let alone removing, such a comment?

[Noscitur a sociis]

How many conservatives set up bail funds for those arrested in the mahem?

https://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2016/02/01/trump-i-ll-pay-for-protester-beatings

I’ll grant you that, being Trump, he was probably lying. But he did say it.

[Bob from Ohio]

Trump is many things, "conservative" is not one of those things.

[Magister]

Reagan is about the only Republican president in my lifetime who hasn't been reviled as not conservative by Republicans, and many have had doubts about him. Why do they keep selecting candidates like these?

[Krychek_2]

Because up until 2016 the grownups were in charge of the GOP nominating process. Pre Trump I disagreed with Republicans policy but recognized they nominated people who weren’t batshit crazy.

[Magister]

George W Bush was excommunicated as a big spender and not a real conservative late in his second term. The compassionate part of his conservative identity was always BS, but not the conservative part ... until his policies failed and lost Congress.

So it didn't just start with Trump. I think that being a loser is more likely to get them rejected as conservative than being post Trump. Maybe Reagan escaped only by finishing two terms with his vice president becoming president and not losing Congress in humiliating fashion and not being impeached or indicted, despite Iran-Contra.

[Brett Bellmore]

And H.W. only got one term because he no sooner got elected than he set out to undo most of Reagan's victories. Most consequentially, Regan's leashing of the BATF; Without H.W., the country might never have seen a militia movement, Waco slaughter, or OK City bombing.

The reason conservatives reviled W's "compassionate conservatism" is because adding the "compassionate" was taken as, and likely intended as, an insult to other conservatives. I mean, you'd really expect left-wingers to love a prominent Democrat who announced she was a "sane liberal", right? Because, what's wrong with being sane?

[Nige]

After all the hard work by Christian conservatives to seperate their version of christianity from compassion it must have been irksome.

[Michael P]

I tend to agree as to the third. However, the second seems like a true threat, just one where the intended shooter is not explicitly identified. Similarly, the fifth seems like a true threat that is conditioned on her going to the third most populous state in the country.

[bevis the lumberjack]

For what it’s worth I thought that all but #3 are threats. I eliminated 3 because it was more a suggestion that someone else take action.

How broken do you have to be to get so wrapped up in this kind of thing?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Good thing he didn't walk into her office. She proudly keeps unattended guns lying all over and boasts that they are "ready for use".

[bevis the lumberjack]

So, what….that makes it ok to repeatedly threaten to put a bullet in her head? Do you really believe that? If so, you need to step away from politics a bit before you lose your humanity.

I consider people like Boebert and MTG to be complete wastes of skin, but they don’t deserve to be threatened by pieces of shit like this guy. And if you truly support what he’s done here, then shame on you.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Hardly.

But if you don’t want to be attacked by that vicious dog next door, don’t walk next to the fence with sausages hanging from your pockets and making cat sounds.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And if you don't want to be raped, don't wear short skirts and tight shirts.

It's called "blaming the victim" and it is inappropriate -- VERY inappropriate, and the dog next door should stay in his yard and not attack *anyone.*

[Dan Schiavetta]

Guns are designed to kill people. Skirts aren’t designed to make a woman susceptible to rape.

[Frank Drackman]

Hey Now!!

[Noscitur a sociis]

Can you elaborate about which of Boebert’s (generally unimpressive) behaviors you feel is equivalent to “walk[ing] next to the fence with sausages hanging from your pockets and making cat sounds” in your analogy?

[bevis the lumberjack]

So all that hate directed at women on the internet that you deplore is actually ok if the woman happens to support a civil right that you don’t like.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I'm sorry, but where does capt write or imply that directing hate at Boebert is okay?

[bevis the lumberjack]

“If you don’t want to be attacked by the vicious dog next door don’t walk by the fence carrying sausages”.

Boebert was asking for a bullet in the head.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

No, Boebert is foolishly making it possible for herself to be shot in the head. In his opinion. But whatever. I'm still chuckling at the understated description of Boebert's actions as "generally unimpressive."

[bevis the lumberjack]

How is she making it possible for herself to be shot in the head? By supporting a civil right? That’s absurd.

Seriously, the position you and he are taking on this is embarrassing. Violence - threatened or committed - is fine as long as the target is engaged in wrongthink. The victim was asking for it.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Others have been on the actual violent end of the kind of loose-limbed celebration of firearms boasted by Boebert. Gabbie Giffords, for example. (After whose shooting her state's Republican Party offered a Glock pistol — the exact weapon used to almost kill Giffords — as a prize in a fundraiser.)

[Toranth]

"A crazy leftist shoots a Democrat; Republicans must be to blame." And that's above and beyond calling an attempted assassination "a celebration of firearms" in terms of bullshit phrasing.

And to be clear, nearly a year later, a Republican group offers a raffle, one of the prizes is a Glock pistol, of which several million are sold each year. To delusion cretins, this is obviously connected to the Giffords shooting, because *mumble mumble*.

Do you actually have an argument of some sort, or are you just here to spew lies and insults at people that exercise their rights?

[bevis the lumberjack]

Quit beating around the bush. You seem to be excusing this guy’s behavior. Do you believe that Boebert deserved to be threatened? Shot? Those are yes or no questions.

Why stop at Giffords (who was shot by a loony)? JFK was a strong proponent of the 2nd Amendment. Did Oswald (another disaffected leftist) give Kennedy what he had coming?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

(After whose shooting her state’s Republican Party offered a Glock pistol — the exact weapon used to almost kill Giffords — as a prize in a fundraiser.)

And TV game shows keep giving away cars, in spite of the number of people who are killed or seriously injured in them each year. Shameful.

[Nige]

Well, it's fair to wonder if people who make such a fetish of guns, and who of course find other people expressing violent tendencies via personal threats so distressing, ever engage in self-reflection about their own bizarre performative behaviour with tools of violence.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

When will President Biden apologize for his hate-filled rhetoric towards conservatives and Republicans that caused this?

[SRG]

Oh grow the fuck up and be honest for once in your miserable existence.

[Mr. Bumble]

You should have directed this to the Queen.

[Frank Drackman]

Ah C'mon Man! his son died in Combat in Ear-Rock, firing Writs of Mandamus at the Al Kaida's!! And he's an old man, confused, he thought Eva Longoria was 12, thats why he grabbed her tit like it was a friggin Cantaloupe.

[Mr. Bumble]

Careful Frank or MoreCurious and SimonP will start badgering EV again to ban you.

[Bob from Ohio]

"MoreCurious and SimonP"

No one likes snitches.

Frank is funny.

[Mr. Bumble]

Agreed and the kinder/gentler Frank is even funnier.

[Nige]

You guys love your sexual predators.

[Ben_]

He doesn't remember saying that stuff. He can form sentences if they are written out for him.

[Sarcastr0]

Can’t script a negotiation. Yet he wrecked the GOP on the debt ceiling.

[Flight-ER-Doc]

He should be quite happy during those 15 months: He will be in a location where only the government has firearms, and will provide him with food, housing and medical care in a diverse, inclusive, environment.

[Dr. Ed 2]

12.75 Months....

[Orbital Mechanic]

"[D]on't come to Florida us libs have big guns here and we stand out [sic] ground. Take you down like Trayvon."

Anyone who thinks this is a "lib" is delusional.

Yes, there are many liberals who are gun owners and hobbyists. Gun rights is after all a liberal concept, fought for and won by liberals for everyone.

Using or threatening to use guns to gain social ascendence and a sense of personal power is not something liberals do. That is the domain of the weak and frightened right wing reactionaries that have learned to dominate our culture by banding together and making endless noise about "freedom."

But, it seems that the victim in this case is actually a right-wing representative, so we get to call it "left wing violence" and even though the score is like 999 to 1 we can still say it is "a problem that both sides have."

[Sarcastr0]

To be fair to this comentariat, no one has yet come along saying this is a big liberal thing.

[Kleppe]

A Bernie Bro tried to murder half of Congress just a few years ago.

[SRG]

Who? I do recall Cesar Sayoc trying to take out the entire Democratic leadership with incompetently-home-made pipe bombs, but he was a Trump supporter.

[Noscitur a sociis]

In case you’re actually serious:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_baseball_shooting

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Maybe he was thrown off by the "half of Congress" description.

[SRG]

Yeah - when someone says, "a Bernie Bro tried to murder half of Congress" I will grant some hyperbolic leeway, but 24 Republican Congressmen isn't close to half.

[Heedless]

“A Bernie Bro tried to murder 6.5% of Congress” just doesn’t roll off the tongue.

[Brett Bellmore]

True; He was perfectly willing to leave some of them alive, he "just" wanted to kill enough Republicans to give Democrats control.

[Noscitur a sociis]

He’s the one who used the word…

[Kleppe]

"Anyone who thinks this is a “lib” is delusional."

Yes, it was almost certainly a right winger who repeatedly threatened to kill the right wing politician. Despite the fact that he identified himself as a "lib". Lol, lmao

[Ben_]

That's the way leftists talk though.

Remember when liberals used to talk about helping poor people? They left that behind a long time ago and only express hatred and contempt for Americans these days.

[Sarcastr0]

Ben is intimately connected with the leftists in his head.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

But, it seems that the victim in this case is actually a right-wing representative, so we get to call it “left wing violence” and even though the score is like 999 to 1 we can still say it is “a problem that both sides have.”

Every time I think I've already read the most embarrassingly stupid thing I'm ever going to see here...someone like you comes along and proves me wrong.

[Frank Drackman]

Kindler/Gentler Frank here.
I think everyone's made some insightful comments! Peace out!
and God Bless!

Frank "Ohmmmmmmmmm"

[Artifex]

and even though the score is like 999 to 1 we can still say it is “a problem that both sides have.”

This is a numbingly ignorant statement. A good book to read here is “Days of Rage” by Bryan Burrough. If I remember correctly, the right has a slightly higher body count. This is largely because of a single very capable nut: Tim McVeigh. In the 60s, 70s and 80s you have far more acts of political violence by leftists. This doesn’t even count organized labor violence which is also prevalent but is redefined to not be violence.

Also provocatively, you have a far greater acceptance of violence as a political tool by progressives. While the rightists tend to be locked up and shunned by society. The leftists had a support network with lawyers and supporters. How many Klansmen ended up teaching sociology at public institutions ?

[Sarcastr0]

https://www.newamerica.org/international-security/reports/terrorism-in-america/what-is-the-threat-to-the-united-states-today/

This is a stupid game - terrorists are terrorists first, with their ideology coming after.

But if you want to play it you will lose. 267 people have been killed by terrorist acts on US soil since 9/11. 130 of those have been right-wing. 13 were left wing.

Even in this here commentariat, the invocations of violence come almost entirely from the MAGA. Not even the libertarians on here, but the MAGA.

[Jmaie]

Artiflex: in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s…
Sarcastro: since 9/11…

[Artifex]

Yes, Sarcastro doesn’t deal with real data that contradicts his religious beliefs and he needs to reframe a bit to push the narrative. He starts by moving the goal posts to try avoid the time period I was talking about because it works against the narrative so it is not something he wants to honestly address.

Mostly his source looks to be a progressive article on why border closures won’t stop jihadis. This looks to be a political hit piece aimed at the Trump border closures. Sarcastro’s representation is, as usual, a little less than honest. Also, notice he tries to move goalposts from “political violence” to terrorism and the argument in the article that jihadism is roughly equivalent to right wing violence is supported by absolutely nothing. It is the usual Sarcastro hot air.

In the end, this is just is the usual Sarcastro mode. Ignore the opposing argument, reframe, yell and bang your shoe on the table.

[Sarcastr0]

The real data!

My narrative is this whole exercise is silly, as I said but you seem to have missed.

My source is a study I liked to. Your source is a book you kinda remember as agreeing with your priors.

How is political violence different from terrorism?

[Artifex]

The real data!

I know it's a stretch for a political hack like yourself, but some of us like sources of data that we can verify in the real world.

My narrative is this whole exercise is silly, as I said but you seem to have missed.

The dishonest hack says it is silly so it must be so ! Excellent argument you have there. Because you can talk out of both sides of your mouth there can be no real truth and we should just drop it and assume it is silly. Hurp a derp a lurpa.

My source is a study I liked to ....

The study you linked to is a political piece not a study. It is full of unsupported throw away lines such as the one equating jihadism and right wing violence and is utterly missing both method and data. Burrough goes into the period data in depth. Honest exploration. Not so much your thing.

How is political violence different from terrorism?

Terrorism is mass violence with the aim of terrorizing a population. Hitting someone with a bike lock isn't terrorism. Beating up people taking photos isn't terrorism. Systematically robbing Walmarts isn't terrorism. All of these things are problematic political violence but not terrorism. This is important only because dishonest hacks like yourself try to motte and bailey between terrorism and political violence. Take a look at that erstaz "study" of yours. Notice how they are sticking to "terrorism" and not the forms of political violence supported by Antifa and other leftist groups ? They are picking cherries to get the pie they want. The usual dishonest fare.

[Sarcastr0]

How are you verifying stats on political violence? You doing the interviews yourself?

I explained my opinion of why this is silly. You have not explained anything. You need to earn being dismissive.

You cite a book and then make up numbers! How the fuck do you have standing to say my study is not convincing you?

Terrorism has a political end. Simply terrorizing the population is a set which contains terrorism but is broader. Unless the French Revolution is terrorism.

[Toranth]

You did not link to a study.
You linked to a 'news article' by a Left-wing think tank (according to the Washington Post, at that) about Islamic terrorism that listed some numbers in a one-off sentence without attribution or sourcing.

Next time, you can try linking to your own blog post; it's as much "a study" as what you linked here.

[Sarcastr0]

They did a quantitative…study.

If you have issues with their numbers then make an argument. Otherwise you are just wanting with an ad hominem.

[Toranth]

You have zero idea what they did, despite your claims, because they do not list a source or methodology for their statements. There's no 'study' there.
I do have a problem with their numbers, in that I find them impossible to match with any other source I try to look at (like the DOJ), but without knowing where those numbers came from, it is difficult to argue with the airy assertions they make. Can't counter facts when they don't supply them, ya know.

Additionally, pointing out that you are misrepresenting your link is not an ad hominem, nor is pointing out that their assertion is not supported actually by any data or methodology.
Do you actually know what an ad hominem fallacy is?

[bevis the lumberjack]

Well, dang, Artiflex that makes this ok then.

Maybe you can get some peace loving Antifa folks to bust the guy out of prison. They certainly know how to wield bike locks and clubs and guns and Molotov cocktails and bricks very well. Peacefully, of course.

[Nige]

Concrete milkshakes!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Rep. Boebert is a dysfunctional, bigoted, poorly educated failure in every aspect of life (as a wife, as a parent, as a citizen, as an elected official, as an ostensible adult).

Worthless, bigoted, uneducated, hypocritical right-wing failures have rights, too. The person who threatened Rep. Boebert should have been prosecuted.

[hoppy025]

No, that would be Pedo Joe, Maxine Waters, and you other degenerate Democraps.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Are you genuinely unaware of the flaming shitstorm that is Rep. Boebert’s “family” life?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

How is the first statement considered a “true threat?”

[Caphon]

You can always spot the “not of the gun” person by the language they use to speak about guns. Not saying it’s a lib, but it sounds like a gun control advocate trying to talk like they imagine a gunner talking.

[hoppy025]

I'm shocked to see the Pedo Joe DOJ actually prosecute for this.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, Marie Antoinette, it isn't. There is a BIG difference between threatening violence and mocking misfortune.

While I'd like to know how either the Congresswoman and/or the Feds learned of these tweets, while a generation ago they would have been verbal statements to buddies and likely forgotten, they are threats and Twitter is interstate.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Bannon and D'Souza did not burn down buildings....

[Dr. Ed 2]

Did the media give him a national platform to express those threats on? Does Youtube still (6+ years later) give him a national platform?
See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=090qmm3qRuo

And was Madonna prosecuted?!?

[bevis the lumberjack]

The new voting laws in Georgia were the NEW JIM CROW!!!! Until they weren’t, anyway.

I was a mere child, but I doubt that voting under the laws of the Old Jim Crow resulted in >90% satisfaction among black voters. If Biden cared about accuracy instead of hate, he’d have called it the New, IMPROVED Jim Crow.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I dunno. Antifa? That’s where the most consistent political violence has been coming from since 2015 or so.

[bernard11]

What is antifa's body count?

[Nige]

Averted threats were never threats!

[bevis the lumberjack]

I don’t know. >0. Their body count is higher than Boebert’s.

Violence only counts if someone is killed?

Molotov cocktails and bike locks to the brain don’t have the potential to kill? Do they get credit points for luck? Are you claiming they’re not violent?

Are you defending their bullshit?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

What is antifa’s body count?

At least 1 (Aaron Danielson)…though we don’t know how many of those who committed the dozen or so murders during the ANTIFA/BLM/whoever mostly-peaceful-protests identified with which group(s). Also, there have been numerous attempts by those identifying as ANTIFA, but they were too inept to close the deal.

[Nige]

A molotov cocktail to the brain is what they used to call a Belfast haircut.