We're not talking a Class C misdemeanor, we're talking about Murder 1; the two are handled SOMEWHAT differently. However, since YTs point was that there would be no blame assigned if Russia attacked China after a vague post calling for such an attack, and my point was that if someone posted the equivalent about a US Congressman the reaction would be swift and immediate, WHO'D respond was irrelevant. Yes, I used the Secret Service because they seemed most likely, and still do to me, but even if I'm wrong that doesn't change the fact the debate was never about the Secret Service. If you want to make it about your quibble over who'd respond and the precise facts of the two posts, you said, "Probably never - the secret service does not guard congressmen". You've stated yourself that it's a FACT US Congressman running for V/P are guarded by the Secret Service within 120 days of the election, and ANY of them can be by executive order; you've also acknowledged there's no legal bar to the Secret Service offering protection to Congressmen over and above what's authorized. So if you want to play semantic games your statement is still FACTUALLY untrue on its face, but that was never my point even if it was yours. If there's no possible way the Secret Service would respond, fine, I'm wrong (though if you want to parse it so finely you've stated that's not necessarily the case) but my argument was that YT was wrong to think public threats beneath notice, that such threats would be promptly and aggressively investigated by SOMEONE, and that's the only point I really care about "winning" if this is to be reduced to that yet again, so I won't contest the other further.