>>4204575 (pb notables)

This is false. First of all, 42 USC 1983 is a CIVIL remedy for deprivation of civil rights under the color of law. NOT criminal. Second, it requires a cause of action. Here, there is none. It's a threat. She (nor did any other Dimwit) do anything…yet. Well, other than violate pesky House Ethics rules before she's even been sworn in and seated. Now, if she somehow gets in charge of a committee and begins tossing frivolous subpoenas at DJT Jr. then he's got a case. He might even have a case if one of her committees subpoenas him. But right now, he's got nothing. It would be prudent of him to save the tweet just in case he starts getting shit thrown his way.

Oh, and if she's found liable for deprivation of civil liberties under the color of law, YOU (the taxpayer) pay the damages and attorney's fees and expenses. They can't expect members of Congress to pay for their own fuck ups. Cops found civilly liable for civil liberties infringements…you, the taxpayer, pay for those settlements/judgements.