VIDEO: After Refusing To Hand Over Voter Registration Data To The Trump Regime, A South Carolina Judge's Home "Exploded" The Edisto Beach blaze, MAGA’s war on the bench, and why the threats keep escalating. These coincidences aren't hyperbole — They're a Pattern Dean Blundell Oct 6 October 6, 2025 Editor’s note: As of October 6, 2025, South Carolina authorities have not announced a cause of the Edisto Beach fire involving Judge Diane Goodstein’s home. An investigation is ongoing. What follows examines the broader context that makes incidents like this seem less like accidents and more like messages. You’re support for this community has been INCREDIBLE. Don’t forget, we extended the half-price annual subscription deal for the month of October. Get 50% off yearly plans and unlimited access, and never pay more. Redeem the offer by October 31, and feel free to share or gift a subscription to support fearless, independent journalism wherever you find it The night a house went up, and a country’s temperature showed. On a quiet South Carolina barrier island, a judge walked the beach while her family was at home. Minutes later, their elevated coastal house was engulfed. Loved ones jumped from windows to survive; several were hospitalized. State investigators opened a case. Early accounts even mentioned a blast. We don’t yet know the cause. We do know this: the atmosphere around America’s judiciary is electric with menace, and that menace is not an accident. In the days before the fire, a prominent Trump-world figure portrayed liberal judges as part of “left‑wing terror networks.” Right-wing influencers revived old bankruptcy allegations about the judge’s family and blasted them across the feeds. That does not prove arson. It does show how a propaganda engine primes an audience: name the target, delegitimize the target, saturate the zone. If something “unthinkable” then happens, the system has already trained people how to think about it. This is stochastic terrorism in plain sight: leaders spray rhetorical gasoline and trust that someone who agrees with them will supply the match. Just ask Stephen Miller: The authoritarian playbook in three moves Step 1: Paint the judiciary as tyrannical — then treat it like the enemy From “so‑called judge” (after a travel‑ban loss) to accusing courts of being “corrupt” and “biased,” Trump and his inner circle have spent years telling supporters that judges who rule against them are illegitimate actors — obstacles to be smashed. When the volume goes up, the threats spike. That relationship has been documented across multiple cases and news cycles. Miller’s latest line — judges, prosecutors, and AGs are “shielding left‑wing terror networks” — escalates the frame from biased to complicit in terrorism. In the taxonomy of authoritarian politics, that’s the move from slander to dehumanization — the rhetorical threshold after which people tell themselves, anything goes. Step 2: Target a judge by name; watch the threats and “in‑real‑life” harassment follow This pattern is no longer anecdote; it’s case‑law in our politics: Judge James Robart (2017): After Robart blocked Trump’s first travel ban, Trump blasted the “so‑called judge.” Robart and his court received a flood of threats. Judge Gonzalo Curiel (2016): Trump said Curiel couldn’t be fair because of his “Mexican heritage” in the Trump University case — a blueprint for ethnicized attacks on a sitting judge. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart (2022): After he signed the Mar‑a‑Lago search warrant, he was doxxed and hit with antisemitic death threats; Congress raced (again) to bolster judicial security. Judge Tanya Chutkan (2023–2024): Assigned to Trump’s federal election case, she received violent threats (a Texas woman was arrested); her home was swatted in January 2024. Justice Arthur Engoron (2023–2024): After Trump targeted his law clerk, the court was “inundated” with threats; Engoron imposed a gag order. His home got a bomb threat during the trial. Judge Juan Merchan (2024): Overseeing Trump’s Manhattan criminal case, Merchan issued a gag order after Trump attacked his family; prosecutors warned of a real risk to the proceedings and to participants. Judge Royce Lamberth (2024–2025): A Reagan appointee handling Jan. 6 cases said he’d never seen anything like the harassment and threats that followed — an “unprecedented wave.” Researchers and security officials now say the feedback loop is depressingly predictable: vilification → doxxing → threats → swatting → bomb scares → (sometimes) physical attacks. The normalizing of violent talk online lowers barriers for someone to act. Reuters Step 3: Extend the target set — lawmakers and election officials who won’t bend Rep. Ilhan Omar (2019): After Trump posted an edited 9/11 clip attacking her, Omar reported a spike in death threats; a New York man later pled guilty and was sentenced for threatening to murder her. Rep. Adam Schiff (2019–2020): After relentless “Shifty Schiff” attacks, multiple men were charged and one sentenced for threats to kill him (and Sen. Schumer), citing impeachment anger. Rep. Liz Cheney (2021): Voted to impeach; death threats poured in; her campaign paid tens of thousands for private security. Rep. Peter Meijer (2021): Another GOP impeachment vote; he publicly said he bought body armor and changed routines due to threats. AZ House Speaker Rusty Bowers (2020–2022): Refused to falsify his state’s results; faced threats and armed protests near his home. Meanwhile, threats against members of Congress nearly hit a record in 2024 (9,474 cases), according to the U.S. Capitol Police. That’s not a partisan statistic; it’s a system warning. What the Edisto Beach fire is — and isn’t — right now It is undeniably horrific: a judge’s home destroyed, family members injured, a statewide law‑enforcement probe underway. It is not (yet) a solved crime with a declared motive. SLED has not stated whether this was an accident or arson. Keep both truths in hand. But step back, and the broader atmosphere is unmistakable: senior officials and allied influencers repeatedly label judges and dissenting lawmakers as traitors, enemies, even accomplices to “terror.” In such a climate, it’s not mysterious that someone who shares that worldview starts to act on it. Security professionals call this stochastic terrorism; authoritarian services — whether FSB, KGB, or the SS — long understood how demonization plus impunity equals intimidation in the streets. The objective isn’t always to assassinate; often it’s to warn, to make examples, to chill the next decision or the next vote. Why the Edisto fire lands like a warning shot Rhetoric is radicalizing. When influential figures claim judges shelter “terror networks,” they shift the frame from bias to enemy combatant. That’s not debate; it’s dehumanization — the threshold after which “anything goes” feels righteous to the already aggrieved. Narratives are weaponized on demand. The Goodsteins’ old, complex bankruptcy saga was dredged up and stripped of context just before the blaze. That’s how disinformation works: recycle a half-truth, remove the dates, imply conspiracy, and let the mob fill in the blanks. Threat levels are already high. Security professionals say threats against judges and members of Congress are at or near historic highs. Inside the system, people no longer ask if a targeted official will be harassed; they ask when and how bad. Add those factors together, and a house fire involving a judge does not feel random. It feels like a chapter in a larger story — one in which coordinated slander, relentless doxxing, and the promise of impunity encourage someone who agrees with Trump’s authoritarian worldview to take the next step. “But isn’t this just heated politics?” What accountability looks like (beyond hand‑wringing) Tell the truth about the tactic. When leaders equate judges with terrorists, say so. When a named judge is flooded with threats, connect the dots. Name it: stochastic terrorism. Trump has created the permission structure for it if he’s not behind these attacks himself. Harden judicial and legislative security. Home address scrubbing, rapid doxxing response, residential privacy protection, and dedicated threat-mitigation teams should be table stakes — not emergency measures after the latest swatting. Enforce the law against true threats and swatting. The First Amendment protects harsh criticism; it does not protect doxxing with intent to menace, bomb hoaxes, or death threats. Prosecuting those crimes saves lives and lowers the temperature. Starve the outrage machine. Don’t launder old scandals as breaking news. Don’t amplify bad-faith clips. Context isn’t optional; it’s a civic duty. Stand with targeted officials even when you disagree with them. If we only defend “our” judges or “our” lawmakers, we’ve already conceded that the rule of law is a team sport. It isn’t. The line we have to hold Whether the Edisto Beach blaze proves accidental or criminal, it struck a country where judges and lawmakers who cross Trump’s interests face threats as a matter of course — and where influential figures daily label them enemies. We do not need a signed confession to read the message. A democracy survives when institutions can function without fear. It dies when fear becomes the function. We can still refuse the war. But first, we have to admit we’re in one. You drive this Substack. Subscribe and get 50% OFF for unlimited access for annual plans. 🔒 Lock in the half-price rate forever. Ends October 31, 2025