When Donald Trump described past representative Liz Cheney as facing a firing squad, Arizona’s attorney standard, Kris Mayes claims that the statement was unlawful.
” She’s a radical war hawk”, Trump said of Cheney. ” Come place her with a shotgun standing there, with nine containers shooting at her, okay? Let’s see how she feels about it, you know, when the weapons are trained on her experience”.
Advertisement
AG Mayes almost wet her jeans.
According to Mayes,” I have now asked my crime division commander to begin looking at that statement and determining whether it qualifies as a suicide threat under Arizona’s rules.”
Mayes wants Trump to serve time in prison for causing unrest.
It is the kind of thing that causes uprising among citizens, and that makes our position in Arizona and other says even more dangerous.
It’s a good thing I was n’t drinking anything when I first read that absurd remark from Mayes. On the track, I may have spit out the material of my mouth.
Another remarks by left-wing press were even worse.
Trump did not say Cheney” should be fired upon” ( as CNN reported ), recommend “executing her” ( as CNN anchor Sara Sidner claimed ), suggest that she “go before a firing squad” ( as The Atlantic’s David Graham averred ), or make” a dark and ominous threat” of “death” against her ( as The New Republic’s Hafiz Rashid asserted ).
Referring to pro-intervention politicians who favor U. S. defense interventions, Trump said,” You know, they’re all war hawks when they’re sitting in Washington in a good building, saying,’ Oh, gee, also, this take, let’s send 10, 000 troops straight into the mouth of the enemy.'”
Advertisement
However, Kamala Harris and the Democrats believed they had a winning topic, but they jumped on the chance.
She said in Madison, Wisconsin,” Anyone who wants to be president of the United States and uses that kind of violent rhetoric is obviously disqualified and unqualified to be president.” She does n’t even have to use “violent rhetoric” to be disqualified from being president, so maybe she’s jealous of Trump.
The obvious distortion of Trump’s feedback is part of a design, and it reflects a broader issue. With only four days until the election, those who are right to wonder what a second term for Donald Trump might be able to persuade on-the-fence voters that his authoritarian instincts, which he often expressed as a desire to punish his political foes, render him unfit for office. However, when Trump’s critics attempt to do that by presenting unreliable information, they encourage likely persuasive voters to reject the case against him as misguided fearmongering.
This is similar to what transpired after Trump was questioned about whether he was “expecting conflict on Election Day” if “you win” in a Fox News interview a few weeks ago. Trump said the” National Guard or, if really necessary, the military” could “handle” rioting by “radical left lunatics”, because” they ca n’t let that happen”. The New York Times erred by reporting that Trump “openly suggested turning the defense on American individuals simply because they oppose his candidacy,” and other media outlets put a comparable spin on things.
Advertisement
I can recall a moment when investigators got fired for quoting a legislator incorrectly. Now, they get a pay bump and a selection place commenting on the vote.
