Absolutely no reason to apologize. He did not say the HE wanted to do this. He was suggesting that this would be a good test of the resolve of the administration, just as people on this forum frequently decry the fact that legislators are many times exempt from the effects of their legislation. In order to be an illegal threat, it must have been “voluntarily and intentionally uttered them as a declaration of apparent determination to carry them into execution.” That would be impossible to prove in this case. Ragansky v. United States, 253 F 643, 645 (CA7 Ill 1918) (“A threat is knowingly made, if the maker of it comprehends the meaning of the words uttered by him; a foreigner, ignorant of the English language, repeating these same words without knowledge of their meaning, may not knowingly have made a threat. And a threat is willfully made, if in addition to comprehending the meaning of his words, the maker voluntarily and intentionally utters them as the declaration of an apparent determination to carry them into execution.”).