you really suck at details for someone who is supposed to be solving crimes, 5-0
i didn't choose the title, i cut-and-pasted the title of the youtube video
FOCUS...

Given the fact you chose the title "Comey belongs in jail, DNI Tulsi Gabbard says" it would seem you clearly meant this in the criminal context.

If you meant it in a moral or ethical context then I suggest indicating such. My comment was clearly about the legal aspect so making some sort of moral or ethical rebuttal isn't really relevant.

Given the fact you chose the title "Comey belongs in jail, DNI Tulsi Gabbard says" it would seem you clearly meant this in the criminal context.

If you meant it in a moral or ethical context then I suggest indicating such. My comment was clearly about the legal aspect so making some sort of moral or ethical rebuttal isn't really relevant.

He chose that title because it was the title of the OP video.

He was reporting what was on YT.  it would seem he clearly had no intention of claiming that is his opinion.

Get a grip.

then why didn't you just say that then?
for someone that always claims to be providing clarity, you kinda suck at it...

I know he didn't say "remove Trump", I didn't claim he did. The point was to illustrate that it matters not whether the message was in code or not, the message remove Trump is protected speech.

then why didn't you just say that then?
for someone that always claims to be providing clarity, you kinda suck at it...

He didn't say this from the get go because he didn't mean it.  He found a way to wiggle out of being wrong again.

I didn't look at this thread for a little bit and it just began page 2.  Then when I came back, it's on page 3. I had a feeling why it was on page 3 and i was right.  EEF arguing again.

So now EEF claims that 86 can have other meanings.  Does this mean that other things can mean "MS-13"? lol. Once again, failure to admit facts causes him to be wrong cause he forgot about it.

you really suck at details for someone who is supposed to be solving crimes, 5-0
i didn't choose the title, i cut-and-pasted the title of the youtube video
FOCUS...

Doesn't change the fact the context was clearly regarding the criminality. "but I didn't write it" is a red herring.

then why didn't you just say that then?
for someone that always claims to be providing clarity, you kinda suck at it...

You need to reread it again because it was quite clear.
I said:
Saying "Remove Trump" in code or in plain English would not be enough....

He didn't say this from the get go because he didn't mean it.  He found a way to wiggle out of being wrong again.

I didn't look at this thread for a little bit and it just began page 2.  Then when I came back, it's on page 3. I had a feeling why it was on page 3 and i was right.  EEF arguing again.

So now EEF claims that 86 can have other meanings.  Does this mean that other things can mean "MS-13"? lol. Once again, failure to admit facts causes him to be wrong cause he forgot about it.

You are delusional. I never said 86 couldn't have any other meanings, you are claiming a position change that doesn't exist.

You are delusional. I never said 86 couldn't have any other meanings, you are claiming a position change that doesn't exist.

Did you not read what I posted?

"So now EEF claims that 86 can have other meanings."

You're stating what I already stated.  It's hard to keep up when you go by feelings.

Did you not read what I posted?

"So now EEF claims that 86 can have other meanings."

You're stating what I already stated.  It's hard to keep up when you go by feelings.

it's simple.  Just because certain words or images can sometimes mean something other than a threat doesn't give you the right to use those threatening words.

It's like pointing an empty gun in my direction.  I don't know what your intentions are, and you're not elaborating.  That's a threat no matter the details, context or nuance.

which is it "clearly" or "it would seem"?

either way, it's an assumption it was about criminality
assuming is not "objective" or "clarity"

Doesn't change the fact the context was clearly regarding the criminality. "but I didn't write it" is a red herring.

On that same note about threats to POTUS, Ed Krassenstein posted the same numerical message. 

He was warned by a user named Jason that the Secret Service would be visiting him, to which the poster's brother, Brian, replied, "Fun Fact:  No they aren't."

Brian's next post was, "The Trump admin just sent the Secret Service to @edkrassen's home ..."

LOL!!   

For their next trick, the Krassensteins will tell hijacking and bomb jokes while in the TSA screening area.   

which is it "clearly" or "it would seem"?

either way, it's an assumption it was about criminality
assuming is not "objective" or "clarity"

It is fine to talk about the ethical issues, I am not claiming otherwise but don't jump on my back because I focused on the criminal question when the context of the title was criminal. On that note, how is "jail" supposed to not be about criminality? Oh oh, maybe Tulsi meant Facebook jail? 

it's simple.  Just because certain words or images can sometimes mean something other than a threat doesn't give you the right to use those threatening words.

It's like pointing an empty gun in my direction.  I don't know what your intentions are, and you're not elaborating.  That's a threat no matter the details, context or nuance.

86 is commonly and widely understood to mean remove from an establishment. 86 as a meaning of kill is a much more obscure and not widely known meaning.
This is not an issue of "can sometimes mean", you are trying to flip the circumstances to make it sound more like a threat.

There are 8647 hats already going up for sale. Maybe in the next few months you can show me a bunch of people getting thrown in jail for reposting or wearing 8647 and prove me wrong.

86 is commonly and widely understood to mean remove from an establishment. 86 as a meaning of kill is a much more obscure and not widely known meaning.
This is not an issue of "can sometimes mean", you are trying to flip the circumstances to make it sound more like a threat.

There are 8647 hats already going up for sale. Maybe in the next few months you can show me a bunch of people getting thrown in jail for reposting or wearing 8647 and prove me wrong.

Comey was the top law enforcement officer in the nation.  He joined the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, where he worked from 1987 to 1993. While there, he was Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division and helped prosecute the Gambino crime family.  In case you are unaware, that was a mob situation in which people were often murdered -- i.e. 86'ed.

He had a very long career in NY State and Federal justice jobs.

It's completely dishonest to say he had no idea what the "86" referred to.  That's made perfectly clear during his recent apology for posting the image.  This was not a share of someone else's post.  It was his picture he staged, took and posted.

Unknowns can wear hats all they want -- that's free speech.  But a prominent and well-known former FBI director who was at the forefront of the Russia Collusion hoax and who tried to get Trump out of office beginning before the inauguration carries much more serious weight. 

People who grab headlines have more responsibility in making sure they aren't crossing a line when they choose to make political posts.  They reach and influence far more people than you or I ever will.

once again
tulsi said it in the title of the video, which i quoted
i said nothing about jail or ethical, YOU did
FOCUS...

It is fine to talk about the ethical issues, I am not claiming otherwise but don't jump on my back because I focused on the criminal question when the context of the title was criminal. On that note, how is "jail" supposed to not be about criminality? Oh oh, maybe Tulsi meant Facebook jail? 

Comey was the top law enforcement officer in the nation.  He joined the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, where he worked from 1987 to 1993. While there, he was Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division and helped prosecute the Gambino crime family.  In case you are unaware, that was a mob situation in which people were often murdered -- i.e. 86'ed.

He had a very long career in NY State and Federal justice jobs.

It's completely dishonest to say he had no idea what the "86" referred to.  That's made perfectly clear during his recent apology for posting the image.  This was not a share of someone else's post.  It was his picture he staged, took and posted.

Unknowns can wear hats all they want -- that's free speech.  But a prominent and well-known former FBI director who was at the forefront of the Russia Collusion hoax and who tried to get Trump out of office beginning before the inauguration carries much more serious weight. 

People who grab headlines have more responsibility in making sure they aren't crossing a line when they choose to make political posts.  They reach and influence far more people than you or I ever will.

Whether Comey liked or even just forgot, given the background the argument can certainly be made that Comey "should have known" that 86 also meant to kill, I am not disputing that. My point is that the ambiguity of the term 86, along with the fact that 86 is more widely known as to remove someone than to kill someone, it has trouble meeting the levels of a criminal threat. On top of that, the fact he shared the picture is again does not meet the test of a criminal threat, it would need to be proven he created the message. If a journalist took a photo of a call to violence graffiti and put it in the newspaper, that is protected speech. For those two reasons, this would not pass the test for a criminal charge.

If you want to wag your finger at Comey from a moral/ethical standpoint I have no issues with that, it isn't professional behavior. The fact that Trump would complain about a lack of professional behavior is quite rich but that's another topic.

once again
tulsi said it in the title of the video, which i quoted
i said nothing about jail or ethical, YOU did
FOCUS...

So why are you making an issue of it that I am talking about the criminal aspect?

The irony here is a bit funny though give that the story is about Comey supposedly just posting an image of what someone else created but you are telling me you just copied the headline someone else wrote so it's not your message. 

focus, dumbass
i am not making an issue about you talking about the criminal aspect
i am making an issue about you putting words in my mouth and saying i am talking about the criminal issue
i hope you don't do that to suspects when you are on the job...
\

So why are you making an issue of it that I am talking about the criminal aspect?

The irony here is a bit funny though give that the story is about Comey supposedly just posting an image of what someone else created but you are telling me you just copied the headline someone else wrote so it's not your message. 

why do you keep mansplaining that point?
do you think you are the only one that realizes this?
this goes WAY beyond "adding nuance"...

Whether Comey liked or even just forgot, given the background the argument can certainly be made that Comey "should have known" that 86 also meant to kill, I am not disputing that. My point is that the ambiguity of the term 86, along with the fact that 86 is more widely known as to remove someone than to kill someone, it has trouble meeting the levels of a criminal threat. On top of that, the fact he shared the picture is again does not meet the test of a criminal threat, it would need to be proven he created the message. If a journalist took a photo of a call to violence graffiti and put it in the newspaper, that is protected speech. For those two reasons, this would not pass the test for a criminal charge.

If you want to wag your finger at Comey from a moral/ethical standpoint I have no issues with that, it isn't professional behavior. The fact that Trump would complain about a lack of professional behavior is quite rich but that's another topic.

but but but but but but TRUMP!

Whether Comey liked or even just forgot, given the background the argument can certainly be made that Comey "should have known" that 86 also meant to kill, I am not disputing that. My point is that the ambiguity of the term 86, along with the fact that 86 is more widely known as to remove someone than to kill someone, it has trouble meeting the levels of a criminal threat. On top of that, the fact he shared the picture is again does not meet the test of a criminal threat, it would need to be proven he created the message. If a journalist took a photo of a call to violence graffiti and put it in the newspaper, that is protected speech. For those two reasons, this would not pass the test for a criminal charge.

If you want to wag your finger at Comey from a moral/ethical standpoint I have no issues with that, it isn't professional behavior. The fact that Trump would complain about a lack of professional behavior is quite rich but that's another topic.