colloquy are sufficient to support his guilty plea, despite the changed interpretation of § 875(c). Based on the foregoing, and all the flies, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Withdraw his Guilty Plea (Doc. No. 82) is DENIED. 1 . The Supreme Court explicitly left unanswered the question whether a defendant need act with purpose, knowledge, or reckless disregard.. Elonis, 135 S.Ct. at 2013-14. 2 . .Additionally, Defendant argues that his statements are not "true threats” and thus fall within protected First Amendment speech. However, in Watts v. United States, the Supreme Court drew a distinction between statements regarding public and political issues and statements about private matters. 394 U.S. 705, 708, 89 S.Ct. 1399, 22 L.Ed.2d 664 (1969) (<HOLDING>). Thus, this Court will only , analyze
holding a political rally for instance holding that attempted conscription by a guatemalan guerrilla group did not constitute persecution on account of a political opinion where petitioner failed to show that the group was motivated by his political opinion holding that the following statement conditional in nature and made at a political rally was not a true threat if they ever make me carry a rifle the first man i want to get in my sights is lbj holding that with the commands of the first amendment clearly in mind a comment that the first man i want to get in my sights is lbj was political hyperbole which did not constitute a willful threat against the president holding that the kind of political hyperbole indulged in by petitioner at a public rally in washington dc did not constitute a true threat