Assassinations And Decorum
Merriam-Webster defines "decoerum" as "agreement with accepted standards of conduct". In light of the renarkable rash of suspensions and terminations being visited on people who publicly celebrate Charlie Kirk's assassination, some people like intellectual welterweight Glenn Reynolds are saying, "I mave doubts about these firings. . . . The courts can sort it out later, just like they did (sometimes) when so many people on the right were being cancelled."
He concludes maybe the courts will sort it out -- well, he's a law professor. But this isn't really a legal issue. What's happening is that ordinary standards of decorum are being reestablished. If you think about it, before anything else, Bud Light's Dylan Mulvaney campaign, in which a leading national brand endorsed transsexualism, was a violation of decorum. You don't talk about people's plumbing in a national media environment; even if children can't drink beer, they see the ads.
I asked Chrome AI mode, "In past times, how did the Secret Service handle threats against the president?" It answered,
The Secret Service's approach to handling presidential threats has evolved from primarily reactive "bodyguarding" in the early 20th century to a modern, proactive system of layered security and threat intelligence.
. . . By 1917, it became a federal crime to threaten the president by mail or other means, allowing the Service to pursue individuals before they could act.
. . . The agency conducts thousands of risk assessments annually. When a threat is identified—whether online, via mail, or in person—agents track the individual, conduct background checks (criminal and mental health), and perform voluntary interviews to determine intent and capability.
Last July, the Secret Service took Comey's post seriously, as it seems to me it should have.
Former FBI Director James Comey and his wife, Patrice, were tailed by law enforcement officials following Comey’s Trump assassination post.
Comey was under investigation for calling for Trump to be killed in a cryptic Instagram post in May.
“Cool shell formation on my beach walk,” Comey said in his caption.
. . . Secret Service agents interviewed Comey and his wife and nothing came of it. Comey is freely walking around attacking Trump and Kash Patel because he knows he will never be held accountable.
Kash Patel recently told Bret Baier that copycats are popping up across the country because of James Comey’s “8647” Instagram post.
If Comey was actually put in prison, the copycats would likely stop.
But the investigation apparently went beyond tailing:
The former FBI director sat for an hours-long interview with agents in Washington, DC — an uncommon step by the agency over a non-specific threat — and investigators he [sic] saw the shells on a beach in North Carolina.
In fact, the investigation now looks like it was even more substantial than that. FBI Director Patel said,
“As the former Director of the FBI, he knew full well the attention and consequences of making such a post. This FBI and our DOJ partners pursued a rigorous investigation that followed the facts - and now Mr. Comey will be held fully accountable for his actions. Thank you to our investigators, Acting AG Todd Blanche, and the Eastern District of NC for their diligent and professional work.”
The general reaction appears to be that this is actually a freedom-of-speech case, but I have my doubts. A quick web search shows that people can be convicted for making ambiguous posts on social media, for instance:
A San Antonio man pleaded guilty Wednesday to threatening President Donald Trump on Facebook before the president visited the Texas Hill Country, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office.
According to an arrest affidavit, Robert Herrera, 52, commented on a KSAT article posted to Facebook on July 10 about the president’s upcoming visit to the Hill Country.
Trump and First Lady Melania Trump visited the Hill Country on July 11.
“I won’t miss,” Herrera wrote, along with a picture of President Trump surrounded by U.S. Secret Service agents after the July 13, 2024, assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania, according to a DOJ news release.
. . . Herrera was arrested on July 11 and booked into the Bexar County Adult Detention Center on two charges, according to jail records: making a terroristic threat against a public figure, a federal charge, and possession of a controlled substance.
Regarding the terroristic threat charge, Herrera faces up to five years in prison along with a maximum $250,000 fine.
I assume Mr Herrera's counsel convinced him that claiming this was just fantasy, or just a joke, or it was being misinterpreted, wouldn't fly with a jury. Added to that problem is the fact that Comey has served both as Deputy Attorney General and FBI Director and may be assumed to have been familiar with both the laws and significant cases, like the one above, where violations were prosecuted. But the question keeps circling back to the problem of decorum:
“Threatening the life of the President of the United States is a grave violation of our nation’s laws,” said Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. “The grand jury returned an indictment alleging James Comey did just that, at a time when this country has witnessed violent incitement followed by deadly actions against President Trump and other elected officials. The temperature needs to be turned down, and anyone who dials it up and threatens the life of the President will be held accountable.”
Estimates of Comey's net worth differ wildly, from $350,000 to $14 million. Whatever the outcome of this and the other federal cases against him, his legal bills are likely to be substantial, win or lose. Attorneys have already scoped out Comey's exposure:
I spoke with three other veteran criminal lawyers who said for these kinds of high-profile cases, it could cost a million to $5 million at a small firm, and much more at a big law firm, where some partners charge $2,500 an hour. Those kind of bills could reach $25 million or more.
. . . The former FBI director, Jim Comey, is being represented by his old friend, a former prosecutor called Patrick Fitzgerald at his old law firm, Skadden. Fitzgerald might have commanded more than $2,000 an hour, but he's retired now, working for himself and can set his own rates or even donate his time.
The problem is that even if Fitzgerald donates his own time to Comey, other attorneys will have to do grunt work that Fitzgerald himself is unwilling to do, and even for someone like Fitzgerald, work is work.But the basic problem is decorum: no matter how many cute remarks you may be able to get away with, making light of assassination lowers the threshold. How many weirdos feel all the more emboldened by how the atmosphere fills up with loose talk? We seem to be getting more and more weirdos lately, that's the bottom line. There needs to be a penalty of some sort for lowering the threshold.
And think about it: Comey makes cute remarks that a standup comic can probably get away with. But Comey is supposed to be a serious public figure. He shouldn't be posting cute remarks at all. Something's out of whack down deep there.
