It looks like Senator Bunning or one of his staff must have turned this guy in. THEY should KNOW better!
Some staffer must have thought there was something in the letter that constituted a threat ~ and I can think of several things that would do that, particularly if you know the staffers are going to read the notes and take them to heart.
(THEY WILL NOT BE REPEATED HERE).
About now the staffer probably thinks he was justified in showing concern with the email(s) but I doubt he thought an unemployed guy would be dragged to federal district court.
Alas, most of your Congressional types, elected and otherwise, forget that THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT doesn't take this stuff to the county circuit court, or to small claims court.
Nosirreebob, the federales have their own court system and it is as expensive as all get out. This poor man will never get out of prison Fur Shur, and yet that staffer will continue to feel he did the right thing.
Obviously he lacks a sense of proportion, and an understanding of what it means to turn something over to the federales.
Many of us had a concern about the decision of the current Congress to turn over the disputes on billing for medical insurance to the federales, or to put a $250,000 fine on top of such disputes. Senator Schumer, a fascist pig if there ever was one, suggested nothing bad would ever happen with this piece of legislation that he wrote ~ it was for an entirely different purpose (he argued), yet, the only place it applies is if you don't pay ~ and there seems to be a 30 day trigger on that part.
No doubt Schumer gets nasty emails all the time. His staff are apparantly quite rugged individuals and take the abusive language in stride. Bunning's people, though, need to be trained. He should tend to that task as soon as possible.
Could be, but if this occurred after Bunning announced his pending retirement, you would wonder why they would be so teed off by this seemingly moderate criticism. What would he have to lose at this stage of his career? IMHO, it is not threatening or harassing.
BTW, why does Nat Hentoff limit the Constitution "being razed" to the last 9 1/2 years? Why such a limited time frame? Seems like the razing of the Constitution has been going on for about 100 years, at least various parts of it. Even the statute he refers to was from 1996 which is 14 years ago, if he cares to count.