More threats of violence by the right.

Uncategorized 1 Minute

Meanwhile, Carlson advised viewers to hold onto their guns.

“We will find ourselves on that path to a one-party state and authoritarian government,” said his guest.

“Yeah, probably not the best thing to give up your AR-15,” Carlson replied. “And I think most people know that.”

Hayes reacted to Carlson’s remarks.

“Just to be clear, Tucker said, ‘Probably not the best time to give up your AR-15s,’” he repeated. “Why not? Why is he saying that? The implication is that you have the AR-15 so that you could shoot at, kill, maim, who? Fellow citizens? Agents of the state? Why do you have them? Who are you gonna shoot?”

‘Who Are You Gonna Shoot?’ Chris Hayes Asks Tucker Carlson Why He Told Viewers Not to Give Up AR-15s After Trump Indictment

Published by lenrothman

Published

105 thoughts on “More threats of violence by the right.”

  1. What’s the point of loving one’s neighbor or country when one’s neighbor or country try to harm you? Chris Hayes is just being obtuse.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Threats of violence if you don’t get your way are not a deterrence.

      They are threats of violence if you don’t get your way…period.

      Trump said it last week and your echo chamber led by FOX is threatening this week.

      Own it or disavow it.

      IMO

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

          3. I’m not being cute. I think you are seeing threats where they don’t exist. So, instead of accusing you of halucinating I’m giving you the chance to explain the message you want to get across. So far, I can’t make out what it is.

            Like

          4. “I think you are seeing threats where they don’t exist.:

            What has your keeping or not keeping an AR-15 got to do with the prosecution of Donald Trump if it is not part of the threat of “death and destruction” explicitly uttered by Trump himself? Such rhetoric IS a threat and it is intended to be seen as a threat.

            Liked by 2 people

          5. RE: “Such rhetoric IS a threat and it is intended to be seen as a threat.”

            You are hallucinating.

            Like

      2. Defending our rights is a lot more than just “getting our way”

        It’s not like we’re demanding others hand over their just earnings “or else” as the left does.

        Like

        Reply

          1. Again DETERRENCE

            If we had already lost the rights, deterrence would have failed.

            Government by the consent of the governed is meaningless if you give up the means to withdraw your consent.

            Like

          3. Where do you see extortion in standing up against violation of rights?

            If someone robs your home, is it extortion for you to demand he stop?

            Like

          4. Robs your home?

            I didn’t know you were robbed. So sorry, I hope no one was hurt.

            Now what does that have to do with Carlson saying to hold on your AR-15 and Trump threatening “death and destruction” if he were indicted?

            Liked by 2 people

          5. You can’t be missing the point, you are running away from it. The person defending his home is NOT extorting the robber when he demands he leave.

            And Carlson is right, as the country slides toward banana republic status, it is not the time to disarm the citizens,

            2 Federal prosecutors looked at the same issues as Bragg and saw nothing to prosecute. This is a political prosecution and one Bragg promised when he ran.

            Like

          6. We already have a system of withholding consent. Elections.

            Apparently your folks didn’t like the result so they physically attacked Congress to extort a different outcome through violence.

            Liked by 2 people

          9. Maricopa County is still refusing to turn over signature match records, in spite of a court order and Fulton County Georgia destroyed records under subpoena.

            If they are innocent of wrongdoing, why work so hard at looking guilty?

            BTW, neither of those were Presidential elections.

            Like

        2. “Defending our rights is a lot more than just “getting our way”

          You are not defending any rights. It is extortion. Trump is being charged with felonies of his making. Just like his companies were convicted of 17 counts of massive tax fraud.

          Rule of Law.

          You want to threaten because of that Rule? Attacking the Capitol based on Italian satellites to extort the VP to break the law was not enough?

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

          1. Who suggested taking up arms over Trump’s indictment?

            No one I know has lost confidence in the legal system to straighten this out.

            If there were evidence of collusion between the court and the prosecutor, we could have a problem. But so long as the system proceeds properly, no one says it is time to take up arms.

            Like

          2. “Who suggested taking up arms over Trump’s indictment?”

            Trump, Carlson, Watters for starters.

            The implications are clear. Nice country you have here, shame if something happened to it.

            Liked by 2 people

          4. Why do you always ask for stuff that has already been cited and referenced?

            Is this the old “deny, deny, deny” technique?

            Trump posted his infamous threat about a week ago when he predicted he would be indicted last Tuesday.

            “”What kind of person can charge another person, in this case a former President of the United States, who got more votes than any sitting President in history, and leading candidate (by far!) for the Republican Party nomination, with a Crime, when it is known by all that NO Crime has been committed, & also known that potential death & destruction in such a false charge could be catastrophic for our Country?” Trump wrote. “Why & who would do such a thing? Only a degenerate psychopath that truely [sic] hates the USA!”

            Carlson and Watters made their comments as posted in my link for this thread.

            Liked by 2 people

          5. I think Trump is mistaken about how dedicated people are to him, but even so, he was predicting, not inciting.

            I think his assessment of Bragg is spot on.

            Like

          6. “Predicting, not inciting”.

            You can’t be that naive. Trump says “sh#t, his followers say “how high”.

            He told the gangs “to stand by”. They did by storing caches of weapons on 1/6.

            The Manhattan office has prosecuted lots of fraud cases successfully, Trump is just another lawbreaker. Bragg stopped the investigation he inherited until he amassed more evidence. He knows the implications and pitfalls of this case because of Trump’s notoriety. Apparently Jordan hasn’t a clue except to please Trump, or MAGA really. He wanted to see the evidence before the trial. There is probably collaboration between the GOP in the House and Trump to derail the case. It sure seems obvious to the average person.

            Liked by 2 people

          10. “Because that’s how banana republics always end and using law enforcement for political ends is a big step in that direction.”

            Laughable! It is MAGA dopes like you trying to make this a banana republic by offering unconditional support for your Dear Leader and threatening violence if he is held to account.

            No one is above the law and there is zero reason to believe that ANY of the looming prosecutions of the criminal Trump are motivated by anything except the sworn duty to uphold the law. You have no idea what is in those 30+ counts nor what evidence supports them. But that does not stop you from excusing it – whatever it is. Tell us again how you do not support Trump.

            Liked by 1 person

          11. I know that Federal prosecutors have looked at the same things and found nothing to prosecute.

            I know that Bragg campaigned on a promise to “Get Trump”

            Like

          12. No, he already sued a Trump for his fake charity and won $2 million and a shut down of the fraud. I think you are confusing the prosecutor who later won against his companies for tax and financial fraud.

            Why are you defending a crook? Of course Trump is going to cry and whine about persecution, but the crimes don’t disappear because he was president.

            Liked by 2 people

          15. Again, I have no idea what that has to do with the current indictment.

            It was a nuisance payment from a fund Trump paid Cohen for that purpose.

            What charity do you think was involved?

            Like

          16. Wow, Bragg’s office won a $2 million settlement and closed down his phony charity in 2018. He knows Trump. He got a felony conviction against his companies for tax and bank fraud. He knows Trump.

            Any reason to doubt the seriousness of these charges coming up should be taken with skepticism.

            If Trump is not held accountable for his frauds, then why should any business care about staying honest?

            Liked by 2 people

          18. The linkage? Trump is being indicted for breaking the law, just as he did in those cases. Hardly a political prosecution. If he just obeyed the law, there would be no prosecution.

            Like you say about guns, it is the shooter, not the gun. It is Trump, not the prosecutor.

            I wonder if the three strikes law would apply. Keep doing the same frauds over and over, life imprisonment. Just like a repeating thief who finally gets put away for decades after stealing a minor item.

            Liked by 2 people

          19. Again, the misdemeanor accounting mischaracterizations are way past the statute of limitations. To prosecute them would require that they be for the purpose of concealing a felony and that Trump knew that at the time.

            So, any other alleged frauds unrelated to those specific payments are irrelevant.

            Like

          20. “Is there any linkage to these payments? If not, not relevant.”

            The stated relevance and a theme in Bragg’s run for office is that – in having successfully prosecuted Trump’s PHONY charity – he is experienced in dealing with the kind of bullshit obstacles that people like Trump throw up to hide their criminality.

            Liked by 1 person

          22. “Is that supposed to be a legal argument?”

            I was not making one, but if the current criminal behavior matches previous criminal behavior it might well be permitted as a prosecution argument.

            Liked by 1 person

          24. “Nope”

            You think not? Well, I think that, for example, the testimony of Michael Cohen or Allen Weisselberg might well cover the accounting and money practices of Trump and his shell companies in order to demonstrate that the “errors” here were part of a pattern.

            Liked by 1 person

          25. “It was a nuisance payment from a fund Trump paid Cohen for that purpose.”

            No, it was not. The facts are already public. Why lie about them?

            Cohen took the money from his home equity line of credit to make the payments to the porn women. Those were his personal funds. He was then was reimbursed over time based on FAKE invoices which Trump personal approved. There was no “fund.”

            Liked by 2 people

          26. Trump was paying him a $35K/month retainer to suppress nuisance claims, and had been doing so before he ran for office.

            A lot of rich people have such arrangements

            Like

          27. “Trump was paying him a $35K/month retainer to suppress nuisance claims, and had been doing so before he ran for office.”

            Just plain FALSE.

            Like

          28. “ Trump has been indicted on charges that could equally be applied to dozens of elected officials.”

            Name a few.

            Liked by 1 person

          31. Again, Congress used an 18.5 million dollar slush fund to SILENCE harassment victims specially so you CAN”T name them.

            Their hush money worked. Well, actually, OUR hush money worked to hide the guilty parties from us.

            Like

          32. “Trump has been indicted on charges that could equally be applied to dozens of elected officials.”

            That is complete nonsense. The crime is not in settling with Stormy Daniels. The crime is how the transaction was illegally funded, disguised and concealed. Payments from that Congressional fund you linked to are not being manipulated to hide their nature.

            Liked by 2 people

          34. “Oh, then you can supply a list of the Congressmen and the claimants?”

            Apples and oranges. Obviously. Just man up and admit the obvious – Trump criminally disguised financial records to cover up his slimy behavior right after the Access Holliwood video came out. And, given the number of counts, I will not be surprised in the least to see other illegal transactions emerge in the indictment.

            To defend against the charge of campaign finance fraud, Trump has tried to argue that the payments were not about the campaign but to keep the sleeze from the view of his wife. Okay. Then they were PERSONAL expenses and were stolen from the campaign funds OR they were a form of undeclared income if funded by a Trump business. Either way, there is obviously plenty of probable cause that crimes were committed.

            Liked by 1 person

          36. “I know that Federal prosecutors have looked at the same things and found nothing to prosecute.”

            Bullshit.

            Trump was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Cohen case who escaped prosecution because of DOJ policy towards sitting Presidents, not lack of evidence.

            If D.A. Alvin Bragg has overstepped, he will get his come uppance in court, just like the 100% political prosecution by John Durham did.

            Liked by 2 people

          38. No, Don, banana republics use mobs to attack government…like Brazil and America.

            The leaders try to extort lesser officials to do their bidding as in overturning elections.

            They also run financial frauds since they expect to be protected.

            Trump is being indicted for financial and tax fraud using campaign monies. He will be indicted for trying to extort and threaten election officials. He lied about keeping highly secret files as a civilian. All felonies.

            His companies have already been convicted of 17 counts of tax and financial fraud.

            If you think he should be excused because he was president, you have no respect for the rule of law.

            And that is the route to a banana republic.

            Liked by 2 people

          40. He is being prosecuted for financial fraud, threatening election officials, tax evasion, withholding too secret files.

            Those are not crimes in your book?

            Liked by 2 people

          42. Threatening election officials is the GA case. I was generalizing.

            What evidence have you, or Dershowitz, seen? The estimates are 34 counts of fraud, tax evasion etc.

            You do not want the rule of law, just excuses.

            Liked by 2 people

          43. You haven’t seen the indictments either.

            The speculation is that the payments were made in small amounts over time and each payment is getting a separate count, or 2

            I would be tickled if there was something that would cause Trump to drop out, but if it is just nitpicking over trivial embarrassments it will just polarize the country even more.

            Like

          45. Not nothing illegal, but misdemeanors that would at most get a small fine, and with a 2 year statute of limitations.

            Bragg has to presume that the mischaracterizations were to hide campaign finance violations to construct a felony that could still be prosecuted

            Like

          46. “ According to New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules section 213, the statute of limitations for fraud in the state is six years. This means that a person must file a lawsuit within six years of discovering the fraud occurred. The statute of limitations begins to run from the date of discovery, which is defined as the date on which the person knew or reasonably should have known of the fraud.”

            “However, it’s important to note that in some cases the statute of limitations may be extended. For example, if the person committing the fraud actively conceals the wrongdoing, the statute of limitations may be extended until the victim discovers the fraud or until a reasonable person should have discovered it.”

            https://eastcoastlaws.com/fraud-statute-of-limitations-in-new-york/

            Liked by 1 person

          51. “Bragg has to presume”…

            Actually, he has to PROVE in court that they are felony charges. He wouldn’t be bringing the indictment if he did not have solid evidence of the crime.

            Like

          53. Bragg’s legal theory is being widely condemned INSIDE the TDS bubble where you live. Those who see Trump for what he is – a criminal con man , traitor, and sociopath – are just not in there with you.

            Dershowitz has disgraced himself so many times it is not even funny anymore and his entire hyperbolic opinion is based on nothing but speculation.

            Liked by 1 person

          54. …”but I don’t think he should be prosecuted because he was either.”

            He presidency is irrelevant in is case. If he broke the law, which the indictment says he did more than 30 times, he should be prosecuted.

            Liked by 1 person

          57. “Why do you always ask for stuff that has already been cited and referenced?”

            It is an obvious dodge. It is a way of pretending that facts readily available in the public record may not be true. It is the same deliberately weak-minded logic that says Trump did not incite the violence on January 6th because he did not explicitly tell anyone to hang Mike Pence or attack Capitol Police.

            Liked by 1 person

          58. Trump had close association with many Mafia figures in NY.

            Fast forward to his presidency with torn up memos, burning papers in the fireplace (through Meadows), effective “burner” phones provided by his associates…all techniques to distance himself personally from illicit activities.

            His 1/6 rally speech was incendiary on its own, but the most rabid speeches were by his clueless followers trying to kiss up to MAGA and Trump.

            He is a street smart hustler. But even the most street smart sometimes forget to look both ways before crossing.

            I think he knows that his house of cards is collapsing, and desperation is a prelude to serious mistakes.

            It sounds like this first case is a lot more dangerous for him than we have been led to believe. Bragg runs a super tight ship, but his turn around on this case was apparently the result of a lot more evidence and witnesses in the last year or so.

            Trump personally eluded direct criminal conviction in the the case against his companies. Not this time, however.

            Liked by 2 people

    2. “You guys really just don’t understand the concept of deterrence.”

      What prattle!

      What the Hell has deterrence got to do with threats of violence if a criminal legally charged with multiple crimes is brought to trial? In connection with the prosecution of Donald Trump, who are you try to deter and from doing what?

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      1. RE: “What the Hell has deterrence got to do with threats of violence if a criminal legally charged with multiple crimes is brought to trial?”

        You must not believe in the principle of innocence until proof of guilt.

        Like

        Reply

        1. “You must not believe in the principle of innocence until proof of guilt.”

          LOL!

          Because I refer to the criminal Trump as a “criminal?”
          Maybe you missed it but the Trump Organization lead and controlled by Donald Trump has already been found guilty of criminal tax fraud. That makes him a criminal in my book.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

        2. RE: “Because I refer to the criminal Trump as a ‘criminal?'”

          Yes. In fact, you repeat the dishonesty with your example. Trump himself was not convicted of tax fraud.

          Like

          Reply

          1. “Yes. In fact, you repeat the dishonesty with your example. Trump himself was not convicted of tax fraud.”

            What “dishonesty” are you referring to, Mr. Roberts? Have you been mislead in any way? And where were you the dozens of times that Dr. Tabor has referred to the “Biden Crime Family?” Does not “innocent until proven guilty” apply to President Biden?

            Liked by 1 person

          2. RE: “What ‘dishonesty’ are you referring to, Mr. Roberts? Have you been mislead in any way?”

            Your dishonesty in calling Trump a criminal.

            Like

        1. RE: “no one I know has suggested taking arms over Trump being indicted.”

          No one I know, either. That’s what makes this whole thread weird.

          I suppose Chris Hayes thinks people who are angry about the Trump indictment should be embarrassed by the morality of their anger. But that is such a redundantly dumb thing to think it is hard to know how to respond.

          Put another way, it is clear that Mr. Rothman and Mr. Murphy are so caught up in their conspiracy theories that they can’t unravel the realities associated with the indictment. To reprise an old hippie cliche, they are part of the problem, not the solution.

          Like

          Reply

          1. “it is clear that Mr. Rothman and Mr. Murphy are so caught up in their conspiracy theories that they can’t unravel the realities associated with the indictment. To reprise an old hippie cliche, they are part of the problem, not the solution.”

            You might try to back up what you just said.

            What conspiracies?

            Liked by 2 people

          2. “…it is hard to know how to respond.”

            Not really. Hayes just asked a simple question.

            Who are you going to shoot with your AR-15? The ones Carlson told his audience to hold on to in light of the indictment.

            Not complicated to understand unless you are trying to dodge the truth

            Liked by 2 people

          3. RE: “Not complicated to understand unless you are trying to dodge the truth”

            Dodge what truth? Some imaginary truth that exists in your mind? Please tell us what it is so that we can talk about it.

            Like

        2. “no one I know has suggested taking arms over Trump being indicted.”

          Strange, that has not even come up among my associations, family and friends. Not even as a topic.

          Are you a gang member?

          Asking for a friend.

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

          1. If you have something to say, let’s hear it. We can’t understand ideas that are only hinted at.

            Like

        3. “A thorough Congressional investigation is sufficient.”

          Congress has ZERO role, responsibility, or authority to investigate the workings of the District Attorney of the City of New York pursuing a criminal investigation. NONE. You are all about following the Constitution except when you are not. The interference and intimidation done by these demented Congressmen already borders on the criminal. Trump’s threatening baseball bat tweets ought to be added to the indictments.

          You seem not to know this, but we have courts and juries who will review in detail the findings of the investigation and THEY – not Gym Jordan – will render a verdict.

          You talk about us slipping toward becoming a Banana Republic while it is you people who are trying to subvert the rule of law for a very special person. Your lack of understanding and self-awareness is epic.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          1. Public corruption is always a proper subject for Congressional oversight.

            George Soros, through an intermediary pac, gave $420,000 to get Bragg elected.

            Brag is only one of scores of DA’s Soros got elected across the country, and his policies are being carried out in major cities across the country.

            This is nationwide and definitely something Congress should investigate

            Like

          2. Then there should be a parallel investigation into the Koch Brothers Foundation. Not only did they promote several GOP candidates, they also have been involved with private takeovers of public schools. NATIONWIDE.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. “Public corruption is always a proper subject for Congressional oversight.”

            Unless YOUR side is corrupt.

            You have ZERO proof of corruption in the Manhattan DA’s office. You are throwing out crap to see what sticks like ketchup on the wall.

            Corrupt Manhattan DA and Biden crime family. What else is going to come flowing from your sewer pipe of allegations with NO evidence.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. “George Soros”

            Oh My!

            I am not at all surprised that you cluelessly parrot the antisemitic trope that Trump is peddling to the imbiciles who still support him. Here in the real world his antisemitic claims do not pass the smell test. Your posting is a collection of lies, distortions, and exaggerations that have been debunked again and again. The Color of Change PAC has been supporting progressive and African-American candidates since 2005. Soros is just a contributor. One of many. Others have given more. And, BTW, Bragg defeated an opponent who had millions more to spend.

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/04/01/incendiary-claim-that-george-soros-funds-alvin-bragg/

            “The Pinocchio Test
            Republicans are being slippery here. Claiming Soros “funded” Bragg is simply false, but many rely on the more ambiguous phrase of “backed,” which is technically correct by several degrees of separation. But it’s still misleading and worthy of Three Pinocchios.”

            Liked by 1 person

        4. “A thorough Congressional investigation is sufficient.”

          Into what? The District Attorney in Manhattan, a STATE court being investigated by the FEDERAL government (ie Congress.)? There is NO legal standing for it.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

Leave a comment