President Donald Trump received numerous assassination threats in the wake his November 8th upset over Hillary Clinton. Hollywood liberals and other public figures have openly daydreamed about the murder of Donald Trump. In early March, during the “Women’s March on Washington D.C.,” Madonna said she fantasized about bombing the White House. Loretta Lynch, a former top official for the Obama administration, has called for a violent uprising, implying that opposing Trump may demand bloodshed.
While the First Amendment protects freedom of speech in America, there are certain forms of speech that are off-limits. Direct death threats are one of them. Indirect threats, on the other hand, may not constitute a threat.
In 2015, “Facebook Rapper” Anthony Elonis publicly shared his desires to harm his estranged wife. He was charged and then tried by the Supreme Court who ruled in his favor in a 7-2 majority decision. This victory had a lasting impact on the future of First Amendment law. Do people have the right to make threats that suggest physical violence?
Loretta Lynch Said What?!
Former Obama officials have spoken out against the recent actions of the Trump administration. They have issued harsh criticism of Trump’s blueprint for his first 100 days in office, as it has included numerous rollbacks of Obama’s policies. These officials have taken particular issue with his “extreme vetting” of immigrants, his ban of federal funding for abortion, and his overturn of Obama’s transgender bathroom mandate.
But no criticism was quite as shocking as that of Loretta Lynch. The former Attorney General, recently suggested the need for violence, bloodshed, and even death to oppose Donald Trump.
“It has been people, individuals who have banded together, ordinary people who simply saw what needed to be done and came together and supported those ideals, who have made a difference. They’ve marched, they’ve bled, yes, some of them died. This is hard. Every good thing is. We’ve done this before; we can do this again.”
Scandalous Lynch Helped Hillary and Tried to Thwart Donald
Without a doubt, Lynch is considered the most controversial member of Obama’s Cabinet. At the height of Hillary’s email scandal, Lynch met with Bill Clinton on a Phoenix tarmac. The details of their conversation are still unknown.
Some sources have reported that Loretta Lynch was behind the FISA court order to wiretap Donald Trump. FISA rejected the first wiretapping request in the summer of 2016, but later approved a second request in October 2016.
Lynch’s recent comments bring to light much more than a civil rights struggle. They are reminiscent of a call to arms. Lynch made these statements after coming under scrutiny for her role in the FISA-approved surveillance of Trump. If initial reports prove accurate, she may have violated numerous laws including the Hatch Act, which prevents certain members of the executive branch from aiding a presidential candidate.
In light of Clinton Campaign Manager Robby Mook’s admission on Fox News, it is clear that Hillary had intimate knowledge of Russian wiretaps that may have involved the surveillance of Trump Tower. It appears that somebody from the executive branch provided the information in order to benefit Hillary’s presidential campaign. Some theorize that it may have been Lynch.
Now may not be the time for Sessions to recuse himself from investigations regarding Hillary, Russia, and the Obama administration. Nor is it the time for Trump to fire Cabinet members because of leaked communications. There is a concerted effort to unseat a democratically-elected President. Obama officials, congressional Democrats, and neoconservatives are working to embarrass and bring down this administration.
The Trump administration will not remedy this treachery by bowing to the efforts Trump’s political adversaries. Donald Trump must begin to prosecute those who break the law, including the former top enforcer of the law, Loretta Lynch.