Yesterday, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump incited his followers to assassinate Hillary Clinton and unnamed justices of the US Supreme Court if they should dare to violate the extreme interpretation of the Second Amendment imposed some years ago by the now deceased Antonin Scalia. The result has been another fully justified outpouring of revulsion and loathing in regard to the fascist billionaire. The New York Daily News and the Washington Post have called on him to drop out of contention in the presidential race. But Trump, as usual, refuses to be accountable or even to live in the real world; he is attributing the backlash against him to a carefully orchestrated media campaign, and nothing more. Trump is a radical subjectivist who systematically denies reality, in large part because of his megalomaniac personality needs. There has never been a more dangerous candidate.
Various veterans of the US Secret Service have stressed in cable interviews over the last 24 hours that death threats have to be considered from the point of view of their explicit content, but also taking into account the authority and persuasive power of the person who is issuing the threats. This means that someone like Trump, who has many times successfully ordered his followers to beat up protesters at his rallies, has a greater responsibility because of the tremendous publicity given by the corrupt media to his every psychotic outburst.
General Michael Hayden, a four-star general who has also been the boss of the CIA and the NSA, was asked on CNN whether a threat like Trump’s would be taken seriously. His answer was to note that if an average person had made this remark within the earshot of the Secret Service at the entrance to a presidential event, that person would have been held for questioning in the back of a police van. As the CNN website stated:
‘Former CIA director Gen. Michael Hayden says if anyone else had made a similar comment that Donald Trump did about the "Second Amendment people" stopping Hillary Clinton, they would be questioned by the Secret Service.’
So has Trump been formally interrogated, since he is obviously the perpetrator? The answer seems to be no. Jim Sciutto of CNN reported during the afternoon that an unimpeachable source of his at the Secret Service had confirmed that the Secret Service, which had yesterday tweeted that it was “aware” of Trump’s statements, had indeed contacted the Trump campaign for conversations of an unspecified nature. As Sciutto wrote:
‘A US Secret Service official confirms to CNN that the USSS has spoken to the Trump campaign regarding his Second Amendment comments. "There has been more than one conversation" on the topic, the official told CNN. But it's unclear at what level in the campaign structure the conversations occurred. The campaign told the USSS that Donald Trump did not intend to incite violence, according to the official. "No such meeting or conversation ever happened," Trump tweeted in response to CNN's report.’
Trump, as we see, has simply denied everything, dismissing it as a hallucination of the corrupt mass media. Trump especially denies that the Secret Service has contacted his campaign, since to acknowledge this would force him to admit that something untoward had come out of his incontinent mouth. Either that, or start attacking the Secret Service, an eventuality which cannot be excluded.
Around the world, rejection of Trump is escalating. The German Foreign Ministry in Berlin has formally warned against the election of Trump, thus giving up their previous neutrality – a highly unusual move and a very big deal.1Le Monde of Paris concluded that Trump’s recent outrages add up to “One provocation too many.”2Corriere della Sera of Milan writes that Trump’s comment has “unleashed many polemics because it is being interpreted as instigation of violence.”3
In the meantime, a deranged rock climber spent several hours suspended from suction cups on the facade of Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue. This person, who must surely be considered mentally disturbed, left a bizarre video statement and is currently undergoing a psychological examination. This entire affair looks very much like a sympathy gag deliberately manufactured by the intelligence community forces above, behind, and beyond Trump to gin up some good will, by showing that Trump’s life is in danger too.
The New Yorker correctly dismisses the Trump smokescreen that he was talking about political action by Second Amendment activists before the election. Trump’s obvious assumption in his infamous remark was that the presidential election was already lost, and President Hillary Clinton was appointing her supposedly anti-gun Supreme Court justices. That was when the shooting would start:
‘It was clear that Trump had been talking about what “Second Amendment people” could do after losing the vote. For anyone who cares about the future of American politics, the comment represents a dwindling commitment to politics itself, to the notion that, through rhetoric and competition, we might find a common way as a people. Instead, the Republican candidate made a casual nod to the final force of arms. At this stage, so little that Trump says shocks us, but, now and then, it is worth stepping back and regarding the full damage of it all: the wounds to our fading global image of openness and generosity; the stomping on our admiration for intelligence, eloquence, or honesty; and now the blithe contempt for safe and civil government. For some, the spirit of violence that has crept into the campaign has been difficult to watch without offering a warning. Last month, the Republican National Convention framed the Democratic nominee as a criminal, a traitor, and a cold-blooded schemer, who, in the words of one speaker, is “personally responsible” for the deaths of Americans in Benghazi. After watching the Convention, Chemi Shalev, a veteran Israeli reporter for Haaretz, wrote that “many Republicans conveniently ignore the fact that words can kill.” He continued:
There are enough people with a tendency for violence that cannot distinguish between political stagecraft and practical exhortations to rescue the country by any available means. If anyone has doubts, they could use a short session with Yigal Amir, Yitzhak Rabin’s assassin, who was inspired by the rabid rhetoric hurled at the Israeli prime minister in the wake of the Oslo Accords. After Rabin was gone, the inciters washed their hands and denied responsibility.
As Trump’s words spread [yesterday], Senator Chris Murphy, of Connecticut, where a troubled young man massacred twenty-six people at Sandy Hook Elementary School, took to Twitter. “This isn’t play,” he wrote. “Unstable people with powerful guns and an unhinged hatred for Hillary are listening to you, @realDonaldTrump.”’4
From Rolling Stone to the London Guardian, intelligence reporters had no trouble in figuring out that Trump was inciting his followers to assassinate Hillary Clinton, along with one or more Supreme Court Justices. Here is the take from the New York Times:
‘Three months from the presidential election, and one day after his running mate promised “specific policy proposals for how we rebuild this country at home and abroad,” Americans find themselves asking whether Donald Trump has called for the assassination of Hillary Clinton.
Trump’s incitement to violence and terrorism lives above all in the here and now, in the context of the strategy of tension and August-September-October Surprise events designed to stampede voters into his column and give him the seizure of power he demands.
In the London Guardian, columnist Lucia Graves’ piece was entitled: “This is Donald Trump at his lowest yet: a man hinting at murder.”Here we read:
‘Donald Trump has long held that Hillary Clinton is stealing the election. But on Tuesday he suggested something even darker and more sinister: that his supporters resolve the issue with guns….I’ve no doubt that it’s an unequivocal call for the use of gun violence to upend democracy and one for which Trump should not be given the benefit of the doubt. I’ve no doubt that it’s an unequivocal call for the use of gun violence to upend democracy and one for which Trump should not be given the benefit of the doubt….This is a new low even for Trump, who’s been accused of inciting general violence and has verbally attacked individuals from Khizr Khan to Rosie O’Donnell. But he’s never seemed to incite it against individuals – until now. Gabby Giffords drove home that point and the pernicious effect those words could have on the unstable, in a statement released Tuesday. “We must draw a bright red line between political speech and suggestions of violence,” she said. “Responsible, stable individuals won’t take Trump’s rhetoric to its literal end, but his words may provide a magnet for those seeking infamy. They may provide inspiration or permission for those bent on bloodshed.”5
Giffords is widely considered a victim of the pervasive climate of hatred and violence aroused by the 2010 GOP Tea Party candidates, especially Sharron Angle of Nevada and her demagogy of “second amendment remedies” like Shooting Senator Harry Reed. Who could doubt that there are enough weak minded and suggestible people at a Trump rally to make his incitements into a clear and present danger for the individuals targeted, and for society in general?
Former Congressman Joe Scarborough of Florida, the co-host and namesake of MSNBC’s Morning Joe, is looking a like Doctor Frankenstein, since he and his sidekick Mika Brzezinski did so much to build up the fortunes and credibility of the fascist billionaire, before becoming increasingly critical of him over recent months. Still, better late than never. Scarborough now writes in the Washington Post that the GOP needs to dump its current candidate before “something terrible happens”:
‘We are in uncharted waters but that does not mean that the way forward is not clear. It is. The Secret Service should interview Donald Trump and ask him to explain his threatening comments. Paul Ryan and every Republican leader should denounce in the strongest terms their GOP nominee, suggesting conservatives could find the Supreme Court more favorable to their desires if his political rival was assassinated. Paul Ryan and every Republican leader should revoke their endorsement of Donald Trump. At this point, what else could Trump do that would be worse than implying the positive impact of a political assassination? The Republican Party needs to start examining quickly their options for removing the Republican nominee. A bloody line has been crossed that cannot be ignored. At long last, Donald Trump has left the Republican Party few options but to act decisively and get this political train wreck off the tracks before something terrible happens.’6
The Tax Wall Street Party repeats its call for Trump to be arrested and held “until we can figure out what’s going on.” Trump has attempted to call in cyber strikes by foreign powers to facilitate his election victory. Cyber attacks can kill thousands, so Trump calling in attacks from hackers can be the leading edge of something much bigger, including the disruption of electrical grids, transportation systems, and nuclear power plants. Trump must also be investigated for issuing his invitation to the hackers of the world to attack the United States. Trump is also being asked why he endorsed one of his campaign officials who had previously called for Hillary Clinton to be executed for high treason. Above all, Trump must be required to explain why he has incited the assassination of his opponent, and members of the US federal judiciary. No more coddling of fascism. The US Constitution and Trump cannot coexist.
- “Das Auswärtige Amt hat vor der Wahl Donald Trumps zum amerikanischen Präsidenten gewarnt. Damit gab die Bundesregierung ihre bisherige Neutralität auf. Trump hatte immer wieder für Schlagzeilen gesorgt, zuletzt mit einer zweideutigen Äußerung, wonach seine Rivalin Hillary Clinton womöglich mit Hilfe von Waffenbesitzern gestoppt werden könne.” http://www.lemonde.fr/elections-americaines/article/2016/08/03/la-provoc...
- “La provocation de trop de Donald Trump,” http://www.lemonde.fr/elections-americaines/article/2016/08/03/la-provoc...
- “La frase, che ha già scatenato numerose polemiche essendo stata interpretata come un’istigazione alla violenza, è stata pronunciata dal tycoon durante un comizio a Wilmington, in North Carolina.” http://www.corriere.it/esteri/16_agosto_09/trump-shock-chi-possiede-armi...
- http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/why-gun-owners-should-reject-tru...
- https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/09/donald-trump-secon...
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/08/09/the-gop...