Media Outrage After Trump Suggests “2nd Amendment People” Can Stop Hillary
Just three days ago, as Hillary Clinton “short-circuited”, we noted “the only question is whether Trump can keep his mouth shut long enough to give Hillary more chances to stick her foot in hers.” Unfortunately, despite the potential for the Orlando shooter’s father to play on tonight’s media spin, Trump has managed to once again refocus media attention all on himself – by noting that “maybe ‘2nd Amendment people’ can stop Hillary Clinton.”
Donald Trump on Tuesday seemed to suggest to his supporters that one way to avoid a potential President Hillary Clinton getting to select multiple Supreme Court nominees would be by way of armed revolt.
“Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the Second Amendment,” Trump began.
“By the way, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is.”
“But I’ll tell you what: that will be a horrible day. If Hillary gets to put her judges—right now we’re tied, you see what’s going on, we’re tied because Scalia—this was not supposed to happen, Justice Scalia was supposed to be around for ten more years at least. And now he’s gone.”
Needless to say, the public attention fell on the bolded part, and after his quote made the rounds among the disgruntled political media and punditry, which slammed Trump for calling for “inviting violence” against Hillary…
— Burgess Everett (@burgessev) August 9, 2016
There is no joking about killing presidents or judges. https://t.co/gtaAUHPJtb
— Norman Ornstein (@NormOrnstein) August 9, 2016
Is Trump suggesting Hillary Clinton should be shot? https://t.co/AXfM8gjrPn
— Emily C. Singer (@CahnEmily) August 9, 2016
This is insane. Trump is either calling for armed revolt if HRC wins or suggesting someone could assassinate her https://t.co/ZJ0UWe4fwP
— Michael Cohen (@speechboy71) August 9, 2016
… Trump spokesman Jason Miller released a statement:
“It’s called the power of unification—2nd Amendment people have amazing spirit and are tremendously unified, which gives them great political power.
And this year, they will be voting in record numbers, and it won’t be for Hillary Clinton, it will be for Donald Trump.”
Another apparent Trump spokesperson on CNN added that:
Trump should not be held responsible because he is “inarticulate at times” and not a professor in “grammar.”
In response, the Clinton campaign spokesman Robby Mook said that “This is simple—what Trump is saying is dangerous. A person seeking to be President of the United States should not suggest violence in any way.” Others from the Clinton staff responded on Twitter, with spokesman Ian Sams blasting Trump’s “new level of unacceptable behavior.”
Justin Barasky, the spokesman for the pro-Clinton super-PAC Priorities USA sent the clip out to reporters with the comment “THIS IS NOT OK.”
Former CIA director Michael Hayden told The Daily Beast that “If someone outside the hall had said it, I suspect the Secret Service would’ve considered it threat and detained the individual for questioning.”
Democrats pounced on the comments, with California Democrat Eric Swalwell tweeting that the Secret Service must investigate Trump’s “threat,”…
— Rep. Eric Swalwell (@RepSwalwell) August 9, 2016
While progressive group MoveOn released a statement calling on Republicans to reject Trump’s campaign in response. Sure enough, the secret service got involved:
Just called @SecretService re: "2nd Amendment people":
"We're familiar with the comment," not yet prepared to make statement.
— Kevin Collier (@kevincollier) August 9, 2016
And just like that, the back and forth begins, and the mainstream media now has a new “Trump topic” for the news cycle over the next 48-72 hours, although the irony of Hillary Clinton proclaiming someone ‘dangerous’ or “suggesting violence” is too much for some to take.