In addition to threatening to kill the DC Judge, the article also mentions her threatening local Congresswoman Sheila Lee Jackson of Houston, TX. She said she didn’t plan to go to Houston, but “if Sheila Jackson Lee comes to Alvin (TX), then we need to worry…”. Alvin is very close to Houston, 20-30 miles away from downtown, like a suburb.
There are three elements of the offense of making an illegal threat: (i) there must be a transmission in interstate commerce; (ii) there must be a communication containing the threat; (iii) and the threat must be a threat to injure the person of another.
…
In determining what constitutes a true threat, the courts hold that what must be proved is that a reasonable recipient of the communication would consider it a threat under the circumstances. Thus, a statement to a judge that “You and your family are going to die” would be regarded as a true threat, even if the defendant claimed that he meant it as a biological fact of life that everyone will die.
It is still not uncommon to see a former POTUS be given the “President” title, but that’s not correct according to tradition. It’s common enough be not be egregious, but it’s still technically wrong.
I always thought it was “Former President,” as in Former President Obama or Former President Clinton.
Of course, he’s probably told them to call him “President Trump” in all court filings. He thinks that it will just better sell the fact that he was really elected and that the election was stolen from him. If he thinks a court will buy that, he’s really grasping at straws.
When talking about a former president, that is common. When addressing a former president, it’s usually “Mr. Lastname” (or I’m sure Mrs./Ms./Miss eventually).
In the published response above, “Former President Donald J. Trump” would have been perfectly appropriate.
I feel like you’re closer to articulating the standard for “incitement” (one category of unprotected speech) when in fact “true threats” doctrine (another category of unprotected speech) seems more appropriate. I believe @CoolHandCox is closer to the correct standard.
I’m only a Canadian. I defer to more knowledgeable American posters on these sorts of details. US 1st Amendment law can be quite complex when you drill down.
Wait till the trial. I suspect there will be a motion in limine that Trump be referred to as “Mr. Trump” for the duration of the trial and not “President Trump.” I’ll bet that motion will be granted, too.
Former presidents are frequently addressed as “Mr. President.” No rule about it, it’s a frequently observed courtesy. Case in point, CNN interviewed Obama a month ago, and he was called ‘Mr President’.
Free speech is protected. You don’t have to call him Mr President if you don’t want to. Nothing to stop you addressing him as ‘you bastard’.
The media gets it wrong all the time. They’re probably the worst offenders. That’s why I said it’s not egregious to use the title for a former president. It happens often enough. But it’s incorrect to do so.
Absolutely. That’s why I referred to what is traditional and what is proper etiquette. There is nothing in law in regards to it.
Early on, as the Constitution was being written, and later during Washington’s presidency, there was a discussion about what the proper terms and usage should be, and suggestions to put it in law. But they declined to do so, partially because of a desire to protect free speech (as you allude to) and partially because they had just broken away from England, and didn’t want to continue the legacy of putting into law how you had to address people. It was too much like nobility.
(There was even talk about the POTUS being called “Your Highness”, no surprise that was abandoned.)
Although I wouldn’t want the judge to engage in such things, it would be cool if everytime the defense addresses him as mr. President, the prosecutor addresses him as mr. Ex-president.
I defer to more knowledgeable American posters 
on these sorts of details. US 1st Amendment law can be quite complex when you drill down. 
