Reply #37: it appears that John Dean, Nixon's former counsel, disagrees w/you

[ima_sinnic]

. . . But did Robertson's communication "contain" a "threat" to "kidnap" or "injure" Chavez?

First, Robertson said he wanted to assassinate President Chavez. His threat to "take him out," especially when combined with the explanation that this would be cheaper than war, was clearly a threat to kill.

Then, Robertson said he was only talking about kidnapping Chavez. Under the federal statute, a threat to "kidnap" is expressly covered.

As simple and clear as this statute may be, the federal circuit courts have been divided when reading it. But the conservative Fourth Circuit, where Robertson made his statement, is rather clear on its reading of the law.

Does Robertson's Threat Count As A "True Threat"? The Applicable Fourth Circuit Precedents Suggest It Does . . .

Here is how the Fourth Circuit -- as it explained in the Draby case -- views threats under this statute: "Whether a communication in fact contains a true threat is determined by the interpretation of a reasonable recipient familiar with the context of the communication."

This is an objective standard, under which the court looks at the totality of the circumstances surrounding the communications, rather than simply looking to the subjective intent of the speaker, or the subjective feelings of the recipient. So even if Robertson did not "mean" to make a threat, and even if Chavez did not "feel threatened," that is not the end of the story. . . .

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20050826.html

and personally, I'd take Dean's word for it over anonymous armchair quarterbacking internet postings