A Kentucky Trump supporter angered by a Georgia judge’s dismissal of an election lawsuit left him a threatening voicemail.
She’s now been arrested in Kentucky, charged with making a terroristic threat, and is awaiting extradition to Georgia.
That means she’s cooling her heels in a Louisville jail cell, will have to appear before a judge in an orange jumpsuit, then will be physically transported to another state, where she’ll appear before another judge in another orange jumpsuit, and if convicted may spend a few months or years in a women’s penal facility living on prison food and separated from her family and friends. Good.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit wanted to inspect Fulton County, Georgia’s absentee ballots to “search for counterfeits,” an Atlanta newspaper reported (story here). But the judge decided they lacked legal standing to sue and dismissed their lawsuit without reaching the merits. (For a brief explanation of “standing,” go here.)
Had their lawsuit progressed farther, it would’ve been tossed for lacking merit. The plaintiffs’ allegation that Biden won Georgia because of “counterfeit” ballots from Fulton County is factually baseless. It was dismissed “a day after election investigators said they were unable to find any counterfeit ballots within batches identified by Republicans who participated in an audit in November.” Because there were no counterfeit ballots.
This is a case of people disgruntled over an election result insisting there must have been cheating because they can’t emotionally accept defeat. That doesn’t, and shouldn’t, get them into court or entitle them to comb through ballots that were already counted three times by proper and legally authorized procedures (see details here).
What these people want to do is go outside the laws that spell out how elections are to be conducted, how ballots are to be counted, provide for recounts, and outline methods and avenues for challenging elections, and make up their own rules for disputing election results. They’re not entitled to do that.
On a broader plane, they want to get their way, no matter what the voters decide. That would render elections meaningless. It profoundly disrespects our rights, and would take away our freedom.
Equal protection of the laws entitles them to challenge election results in the manner provided by law. Free speech allows them to peacefully protest, whine, complain, and howl at the moon all they want to. But there’s a line they can’t cross without consequences, and some Trumpers lacking self-control have crossed it. Now the law is hunting them down, as it should.
People who threaten violence against election officials and workers, judges, and public officials assigned a role in carrying out elections are criminals. This is obvious. But it’s important to understand the more subtle point that people who do that aren’t only committing a crime against the individuals they threaten; by attacking our right to choose who will govern us, it’s a crime against all of us.
In the aftermath of the 2020 election, we have seen massive disrespect by Trump supporters directed against the election laws and system, public officials, the rule of law generally, and democracy itself. Thankfully, many who crossed the line are now being arrested, prosecuted, and facing consequences. This is necessary and good; perpetrators of political violence must not be allowed to walk away scot-free.
From the broadest perspective, this is a battle between order and chaos, truth and lies, decency and evil, democracy and totalitarianism. It must be waged.
Imagine a sand castle on a beach. A tide is coming in. Waves are lapping at its foundations. Grain by grain, the sand is washed away, until the entire structure collapses. This isn’t a perfect metaphor, but it illustrates why we need to defend our system for choosing our government against people like this woman. Prosecuting her, the Capitol rioters, and others who resorted to violence in their efforts to overturn the 2020 election is erecting sandbags to protect the fragile castle of democracy against those who would wash it away. Each prosecution is another sandbag. It takes many sandbags.
This woman is presumed innocent for now. She’s entitled to due process and a fair trial. Let’s not forget that. We should respect her rights, even though she doesn’t respect ours. But if she’s convicted of terrorizing this judge, she should go to prison, not get off with a probation and fine. That castle is fragile and she attacked one of its foundations; that’s no small deal.
People like her aren’t merely bullies. They’re not merely a nuisance, kicking sand in our faces. They’re an existential threat to our system of government.
Therefore, all of these prosecutions are important, and taken together they add up to a whole greater than their individual importance.
It’s about defending our freedom.
Actually I rather hope the Kentucky judge decides there is no merit in the case and blocks the extradition. The question being was it a credible threat. Georgia is going to show she could actually have carried out what she said on the phone or had intent. Judges are supposed to have thick skins, and government power and overreach is to be a concern. The only questions here is if she threatened the judge and is it a terroist threat. Things governments like the one in Russia bandy about like candy especially on people in the opposition.
Your comment reveals you don’t respect this country, its laws, or that judge and his family. You can’t stay on topic, either. Russia has nothing to do with this.