So there seem to be some people, on both the Left and Right, insisting that TJIC was planning the assassinations of congress.
Other bloggers have done a good job of detailing precisely why any charges would go absolutely nowhere; short of it is, the Supreme Court has ruled a standard of "credible threat" which TJIC doesn't meet. (Actually, TJIC's comments don't even constitute a legal threat, much less a credible one, as a legal threat requires specificity.)
But in the midst of an argument with somebody about it, I came to a realization. This isn't a revolt, clearly - it doesn't satisfy the definition of a revolt. But if government chooses to treat it at one, if government decides this is a revolt - it's a justified one.
If TJIC's comments -can- be treated as an attack on the government, that attack would be well-deserved.
A second thought, strict adherence to the Constitution holds that prohibiting threats is an abridgment to free speech; there are some things you cannot say.
The Supreme Court has thrown this out, however, and interpreted threats as not being a form of speech. Okay, fine. But the Supreme Court has also ruled that this has very limited application - that threats must meet very strict criteria in order to constitute threats.
Those arguing against TJIC are arguing for a selective reinterpretation of precedence. Some things the Supreme Court have gone with are okay, others are not.
But until he gets before a court, none of that matters. His rights are abridged on the basis of an -investigation-, no trial necessary.
This is the problem with Judicial Review. You have to get dragged before the courts before it means anything. It occluded the concept of Executive Review, Legislative Review - I've had people insist to me that the concept of Executive Review was wrong, that the president has no right to declare legislation unconstitutional and order it not be executed.
I have to wonder if the Federalist judge responsible for Judicial Review, angry over Jefferson's effective firing of most judges in that time, did this deliberately to produce workload for judges to justify a reexpansion of the judiciary.