143
'I will destroy you': Trump fixer accused of threatening DOJ official — then got her fired
(www.rawstory.com)
this post was submitted on 21 Mar 2026
143 points (100.0% liked)
politics
29001 readers
1706 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Anyone dealing with this administration in ANY capacity need to start recording all of their calls without notice. Recording consent laws are state-level, and most states only require you to know it is being recorded.
Would you rather have proof they threatened you? Or maybe a fine and/or minimal jail, assuming they can even find a jury to convict you for recording threats, AND that there isn't an exception (several two-party consent States have exceptions that cover things like illegal activity, threats, etc).
https://www.recordinglaw.com/united-states-recording-laws/
What happens if a person in two party consent state calls someone in a one party or vice versa? Which state law applies?
The one-party state law applies to the person in the one-party state.
The two-party state might bitch and moan and claim otherwise, but guess what? It doesn't have jurisdiction!
I am not a lawyer, but I live in a one party state and my friend had to record multiple calls for a reason to a company in a two party state and he still won handily and it never came up. Just anecdotal data.
In theory, couldn't they still issue a warrant and try have you extradited?
Extradition for something that isn't illegal in the jurisdiction it occurred in is tyranny.
My (one party consent) state letting California extradite me for recording a phone call without notice would be as absurd as, for example, the US letting Bhutan extradite me for blasphemy because I called their god-king a doodoo head.
if you record someone on a phone call, the recording happens where you happen to physically be.
so the "crime" would have happened in a 1-party state, and would not have been a crime.
In theory. But most states don't send people elsewhere for bullshit like that. Usually just for things like violent felonies. They don't want to be seen as possibly protecting a murderer by keeping them from justice.
That's not how that works.
if, for example, texas wants to send cops to arrest out-of-state doctors providing abortions to texas residents, that would be illegal, and the state the doctor resides in would almost certainly intervene if they had the opportunity to. (I.E. the doctor calls 911 and they have time.)
while there's some circumstances where states would be okay with outside cops coming in to make an arrest, those circumstances are like "I was trying to pull him over and they fled across state lines."
But they have no general authority to arrest people outside their jurisdiction. the usually process is that they would files the extradition paperwork/ gets an interstate warrant, the fugitive state (where the fugitive resides,) reviews the paper work and holds a hearing on it and then makes a decision, then the fugitive gets carted back. But the arrest happens by the law enforcement belonging to the fugitive state.
You seem to have assumed I was saying a State will send law enforcement to another state to get you. That's not at all what I was saying, but I can see how you misread my comment that way.
I was referencing your State extraditing you to the other state for petty bullshit like recording your own calls. They're not going to bother with that, there are way more pressing matters to attend to in their own state than doing what a state like Florida wants.
part of that whole process is determining the validity of the charges.
Like. even for violent murderers "I was never in Florida" or wherever, is a valid defense against being extradited.
We live in legally wacky time though, I'd probably err on the side of caution and announce the recording: It'd still have a deterrent effect and help prevent any legal fuckery.
The two-party consent state laws vary on this. So if you care, you would need to handle both ends of the call giving consent to be sure. This is why companies tell you they are recording even if they're located in a one-party state, especially if they have a physical presence in that State.
So assuming there's not an exception... for example, in Michigan there is an exception if you are a participant in a phone call. You just cannot give a third-party permission to record without the other person's consent. So it's really a one-party consent state for most things you would care about.
But again... even if we ignore the whole primary purpose here of recording threats... if you live in a one-party state like Arizona, do you really care about Florida if you never go there? And that even assumes Florida cares enough to pursue it in the first place.
Sounds like there's a non-zero chance of extradition then, and would they care? Depends on the circumstances I guess. It still seems like announcing that the call is being recorded would have a good deterrent effect though.
It really pisses me off how difficult/impossible it is to record calls on cell phones (at least on Android, I have no experience with Apple stuff) in the US. Even with a custom OS it's generally not possible. It should be a baseline option available after a simple warning to check local laws before enabling it.
I recently got an update on my phone where I can start recording with a tap. It does play a recording so both parties know it's being recorded, so it would be applicable in a two-party consent jurisdiction (hang up if you refuse).
Also, over a decade ago when I was mucking about in LineageOS, I'm pretty sure there was an app you could install if you were in a one-party consent jurisdiction, which would not notify the person you were recording.