On CBS'Face the Nation, Kentucky senator Rand Paul was asked about President Trump's allegation that Portland, Oregon is "under siege from attack by Antifa and other domestic terrorists." In part, he responded
I do think, though, that it's important, when people start talking about labeling people, that we realize everybody, the worst among us, even those accused of heinous crimes, will get due process.
It may be unfair to criticize a GOP member of Congress who is not on bended knee and aching to satisfy the bi- uh, Donald Trump. However, Paul, also:
Host Margaret Brennan asked Senator Paul about Portland,
whereupon the latter oddly and awkwardly pivoted to Chicago and stated
I think he has the legal authority to send troops to protect
federal buildings and federal proceedings, such as courts. And that's been
around since the civil rights era. We have acknowledged that the federal
government will sometimes come in, despite what states say.
I do think it's better when the states agree to it, for
example, I mean, in Chicago. Chicago is a nightmare. It is literally a war
zone. And the people being hurt the worst are those who are poor and living in
these communities. I have been to the most dangerous precinct in Chicago, and
it's just despair and sadness.
Donald hasn't been in Chicago since he stayed at Trump Tower downtown during the 2024 presidential campaign. He hasn't been in Baltimore, either, though he has complained about crime there and has been offered a tour by Maryland governor Wes Moore. Tough guy.
Fortunately, though to Trump insignificantly, Chicago is no war zone. (Democratic strategists and consultants warn other Democrats not to talk about a decline in crime in major cities. Democratic politicians are warned that they are expressing indifference and a lack of sensitivity if they do so. However, facts are facts, and Chicago is no war zone.
Under the US Constitution, only Congress can declare war. Therefore, if Donald Trump declares cities such as Portland are "ravaged by war," would sending soldiers there constitute a declaration of war contrary to the Constitution?
It would be, but Donald's words are meant to inflame passions and coupled with other statements, are intended to rally the troops, to keep them at the ready, as was "Proud Boys, stand back and stand by."
There is another, more important reason, closely related to the point by a Never Trump Republican:
Shouldn't Schumer and Jeffries tell Trump:
Sorry, can't make it to the White House tomorrow! You say a major city is so 'war-ravaged' as to require deploying federal troops authorized to use 'Full Force' against U.S. citizens. So we're heading off to Portland to take a look.
The near-term purpose is to use soldiers against citizens and other residents. The mid-term objective is to station soldiers in major American cities so that we the people will get accustomed to seeing them there and accept that situation as normal. There are elections (presumably) coming up in thirteen months and the Trump Administration very likely intends to station uniformed, armed personnel strategically during the balloting.
There is no time to waste in creating an effective photo-op. Prominent Democrats should challenge the President to visit those cities he believes are "war zones," preferably with a local and/or state official accompanying him. If Trump takes them up on the offer, it can easily be turned into a Democratic win; if he declines, as he did for Baltimore, Democrats should pounce.
It would be easy for those local and state officials to prove that the city visited is no war zone, and it is astounding that no Democrat aside from the governor of Maryland has publicly offered this opportunity to Donald. It's critical to be there and can be devastating strategically to appear as if you're avoiding the area. (Think President George W. Bush and Hurricane Katrina.)
If a Democrat or two does do that, the public will respond positively. Also, we may find that a few redeemable Republicans, such as Rand Paul, might reassess their undying support for President Trump. (That's a joke.)
It was not "lawfare." Invoking the term "lawfare" virtually no one used until MAGAts popularized it because no one understands it does not an argument make. And there were 91 indictments obtained against Donald J. Trump because his behavior warranted 91 indictments. However, there is an even more significant error made here.
I’m not a big fan of the Comey indictment, but if he did nothing wrong a jury will clear him.
But to all the people setting their hair on fire about weaponizing the Justice Department to go after political enemies, show me your posts decrying the lawfare and ANY of the 91…
— Marc Thiessen 🇺🇸❤️🇺🇦🇹🇼🇮🇱 (@marcthiessen) September 26, 2025
James Comey will get vocal support from the left and those in the middle and on the right who still believe in the rule of law and justice. Further, he is very well off and can afford a gaggle of lawyers to defend himself against political persecution.
Others can't, however. And "others" there is doing a lot of work, to the tune of the vast majority of Americans who are indicted, even the vast majority of Americans who actually are guilty of the charges pressed against them. Some are fortunate enough to have the state opt for a preliminary hearing but most face a grand jury because prosecutors are not stupid. As is typical (with some variation) in the USA, in New Jersey a grand jury
consists of 23 regular citizens,
much like a courtroom jury consists of 12 of your peers. The grand jurors hear
evidence for and against you regarding your criminal charge. The 23 members
then determine whether enough probable cause exists to formally indict you of a
criminal offense. You do not need to be present at the grand jury proceedings.
In fact, it’s rare for defendants to attend this part of the legal process.
The members of the grand jury and the county prosecutor are
the only ones present at this meeting. Grand jury presentation does not occur
in a courtroom either. Your criminal defense attorney will not be there nor
will a judge. The prosecutor represents the state of New Jersey and presents
evidence to determine whether probable cause exists to move forward with
issuing an indictment in your name.
The state must receive a majority vote from the 23 members
of the grand jury to proceed with an indictment.
Moreover
The set-up of grand jury proceedings makes it easy for the
county prosecutor to argue for probable cause whether there’s evidence against
your criminal charge or not. Finally, grand jury proceedings are secret. That
means neither you nor your criminal defense attorney are privy to why the
members of the grand jury opted for indictment.
In New Jersey, a pre-indictment conference will be held which, if unsuccessful in resolving the matter, will yield to a grand jury proceeding. many states, the prosecutor may opt for a preliminary hearing, which would involve both the judge and the defendant's lawyer.
In either case, once the office of a prosecutor or district attorney decides to proceed with a case, the state holds virtually all the cards. If the government (state, county, or municipal) decides to indict an individual, he almost certainly will be indicted.
That resulted in the maxim, expressed in 1985 by the then-chief justice of New York State's Supreme Court, "any good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich." A critical point, but he pulled his punches- in most jurisdictions, the "good" is not necessary. Not surprisingly
According to a U.S. Department of Justice study, "Grand
juries are notorious for being ‘rubberstamps' for the prosecutor for virtually
all routine criminal matters." (McDonald, William F., Plea Bargaining:
Critical Issues and Common Practices (1985).) It's also suggested that grand
juries rubber stamp prosecutors' charges because grand jurors are not adept at
evaluating evidence like judges are—making it easier to convince a grand jury
than a judge that the defendant should stand for trial.
And so Mark Thiessen's idiocy, far more likely his disingenuousness, "if he (Comey) did nothing wrong a jury will clear him." It also is absurd, because jurors, like human beings, are not perfect and make mistakes.
However, the greater problem is that almost any prosecutor can obtain an indictment against any individual or ham sandwich. Throughout the country, in most cases, the defendant therefore must effectively plead guilty because he (occasionally, she) will not have the time or money to go through a trial.
An individual typically will not be able to pay for a private attorney to defend him. (A court-assigned attorney may be available. Good luck finding one who is neither politically compromised, inefficient, or overworked.) Even if he does, he may not be able to set aside the time for the court appearances (plural)- the case will demand while counting on the generosity of his employer.
Usually, this: if indictment, the defendant will, one way or another, be found guilty, whether he committed the offense or not.
This is something rarely mentioned on cable news telecasts. It might have been conceded, presumably by a liberal or progressive defense attorney or ex-defense attorney, five years ago. There was such outrage over treatment of black suspects because of (perceived or real) racism. However, even then, the legal community, in an informal, unspoken conspiracy, said nothing.
It's the structure in which they work and they were not about to question the basic, foundational injustice of that criminal justice system. Race was a much sexier- and safer- problem for them to invoke. Now, after Donald Trump has been elected President for a second time and the tea leaves read, the issue of racism is strategically avoided and the underlying unfairness of the system continues to be ignored.
With President Trump reigning supreme and determined to make his self-identification of "King of America" a reality, James Comey is his first victim. In the criminal justice system, the cliche "innocent until proven guilty" means little to nothing.
Though the former FBI director, has been indicted, there is a good chance the case will be dismissed before it reaches trial. If it does go to a jury, it is probable there will be a not guilty verdict. Nonetheless, Donald has made at least part of his point, a warning that critics must keep silent or else. And there will be other indictments against individuals who dare to question Trump because, well, there are a lot of ham sandwiches.
Bondi: A very liberal grand jury in one of the most liberal jurisdictions in the country just indicted James Comey. We know of course we have to go to trial and we will have a great trial team and everybody of course is innocent until proven guilty. We are going to trial in this… pic.twitter.com/gb52CpamfP
There have been dozens of reasons asserted to explain the descent of the national Democratic Party the last several years. One rarely if ever mentioned, but hinted at in this CNN article of 1/21/21, is
Former South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Jaime Harrison
has officially been elected the next chair of the Democratic National
Committee, winning the organization’s election after President Joe Biden
selected him for the top political job.
Harrison, who unsuccessfully ran for the Senate in 2020,
will now be asked to guide the top committee at a time when Democrats have
control of all three key bodies in Washington, the White House, the Senate and
the House of Representatives.
As with everyone else, I didn't recognize the impact this would have on the national party. And unlike almost everyone aside from Chris Cillizza, I do know now.
She built a Presidential campaign from scratch, chose a VP in two weeks, and pulled off one of the most successful Democratic convention in decades in under a month.
She crushed an opponent who has stood on more presidential debate stages than anyone in history. She energized… https://t.co/e3PQLrgkPQ
I haven't read Cillizza's full response to Harrison's tweet, for which a subscription to the journalist's Substack is necessary. Nonetheless, one thing is clear: Cillizza believes Kamala Harris was a bad candidate and Jaime Harrison believes she was not, or at least pretends to believe that.
It's not that Harrison is wrong about everything. He's right about several things, ironically thereby proving Cillizza's theory and disproving his own.
The then-Vice President did "pull off" an extremely successful convention. She "crushed an opponent" in debate, "energized an electorate," and "raised a billion dollars in just 107 days." Further, she was an extremely well-qualified candidate in that she possessed an excellent resume: top law enforcement official in a big city, top law enforcement officer in our largest state, a US Senator representing our largest state, and Vice-President of the USA.
Taken as a whole, that is extremely impressive.
Nevertheless, those were elements of her campaign- the fund-raising: well-executed, exciting rallies; tremendous debate performance. None of those go to whom Kamala Harris is.
She did have only 107 days, as the title of her new, controversial memoirs,"107 Days," not so subtly remind us. Those were 15-16 weeks to persuade voters that they should not return to office an individual who had been defeated for re-election four years earlier by someone generally believed no longer to have the full capacity (whether cognitive or physical) to run the country for another four years.
The former Senator was handed a gift. She did not have to run a gauntlet of primaries, in which she would have been tempted to take stands and make statements endearing her to a Democratic primary electorate but which would have been fodder for the opposing party in a general election.
Moreover, there is no assurance that Harris would have won the nomination if contested in that traditional manner. She entered the presidential race in 2019 and could not advance even to the first primary or convention. The Californian certainly tried hard enough, even winning plaudits from the political crowd for describing rival candidate Joe Biden as a racist without branding him as a "racist." Slick.
That strategic tour de force unsurprisingly brought a lot of money into her campaign coffers, though upon further review, we learned that she herself had expressed a similar view of mandatory school busing. It was a masterful performance by Harris, though eventually registered Democrats recognized who she was and she was done.
Done, but not finished. Persuaded by US Representative Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, who was in Democratic House leadership and a friend of former Vice President Biden, to select a black woman as his running mate, the nominee selected Ms. Harris. Jill Biden was reportedly incensed by Harris' attack in debate upon her husband and therefore opposed her husband's decision, proving that sometimes, mother does know best.
The vice presidential nominee had minimal or no effect upon the presidential race in 2020. President Biden thereafter put her in charge of border policy, enabling critics to label her "czar." Her ineptitude and bad presidential policy- the latter probably a greater factor- led to a remarkable upsurge in illegal border crossings and requests there for asylum, which played a major role in November 2024.
After Biden dropped out of that race, Harris became the default Democratic presidential nominee. She already was vice president, thus arguably heir apparent, and she is black. Yet, well before then, as of early September of 2023, there was talk about the possibility of the Biden-Harris ticket being challenged for the 2024 nomination. However, according to this little-noticed, yet extremely significant article from NBC News at the time, "longtime Democratic strategist" Karen Finney stated
When you had people who were trying to test the waters, the party rose up and made it clear to those individuals- who were mostly white men- that to disrespect the vice president would not be well received by women and people of color within the party. They got a little bit of a smack in the face.
The message was- and is- clear: that irrespective of any other factors, Kamala Harris had to be on the ticket for reasons (demographic) beyond her, or anyone's control. She was entitled to it, whether she would be an effective successor as President to Joe Biden, a net benefit in the campaign, or anything else.
Fortunately for her- vice president, after all- she was able to escape the scrutiny of the media, rival candidates, and others inevitable during a primary campaign. And even then, she may have lost. In the video below, a well-meaning Wisconsin reader maintains (at 2:40) "it was a very short amount of time for the Party to get its act together before the election and had President Biden decided not to run sooner, I think that Vice President Harris would have had a better chance."
It (with her help) did get its act together, she was polling better than Trump, and then the voters got to know her better. So, no.
We cannot know how Kamala Harris would have fared in a primary race. However, we all saw her fail on ABC'sThe View, CBS' 60 Minutes, and with Dana Bash on CNN. She doesn't think well on her feet, an attribute common to many of us who don't run for public office.
That wasn't her campaign; that was her. She is weak in some formats, is substandard as a retail politician, and seems to feel entitled. A sense of entitlement is common in politicians but unlike most of them, Harris is unable to hide it.
Little of that seems to be pertinent to Jaime Harrison. Oh, but it is. In the last sentence of his response to Chris Cillizza, the ex-DNC chairman asks rhetorically "what the hell have you done to sit in judgement of our MVP?"
Besides being a citizen of the USA, in which the First Amendment still applies, Cillizza is a veteran journalist, and relatively objective one. He is entitled (being entitled is not bad; having a sense of entitlement is) to his own opinion, an educated one, which often is right, less frequently, wrong.
Harrison's question is bizarre for another reason: he refers to Harris as "our MVP." "MVP" stands for Most Valuable Player. Say what you will about Harris, who would have been an infinitely better President than has Donald Trump. She lost an election, a winnable one, and that hardly qualifies her as an MVP for the Party which Jaime Harrison was appointed to strengthen. There is only one major political party which now supports freedom of speech, and that commitment may flourish a little more with him no longer its leader.
In all the commotion, Jimmy Kimmel's actual words in his remark in his monologue on September 15 seems to have been forgotten. He said
We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.
Therefore- no, despite this-a former press secretary to the undisputed most dishonest and corrupt (dishonest the operative term here) president in American history had this to say about the talk show host's comment:
To be clear, you are applauding the return of a guy who made false and defamatory statements about the assassination of a political leaders and has yet to even attempt to publicly clean up/apologize
Kimmel made one false statement: the murderer of Charlie Kirk, whatever he is and whatever motivated him, appears not to have been a MAGAit. However, the comedian in the same sentence maintained that "the MAGA gang" was "doing everything they can to score political points from it." Moreover, no one has been defamed, which any first semester, first year law student understands.
Tweet after tweet from self-admitted "MAGA" on Elon Musk's X represents an effort to score political points from the assassination.
But that's not all. The vast majority of these individuals (this one of thousands of examples) is (are?) not well known except by the people who read these tweets. However, this person is quite well-known and, aside from her ambivalent view of abortion rights, is extremely, loyally, "MAGA":
Nancy Mace's very first words to reporters on Charlie Kirk was "democrats own what happened today"
When @ryanobles followed up about if that means Republicans "own" the shooting of Minnesota lawmakers she says "are you kidding me?"
That is what we, or any sentient human being, would call "trying to score political points from" a murder. So, too, was White House Advisor Stephen Miller trying to score political points when at the rally for- uh, er, memorial to- Kirk, he bellowed (also stated on X) (emphasis mine)
.... With God as my witness, we are going to use every resource we have at the Department of Justice, Homeland Security, and throughout the government to identify, disrupt, dismantle, and destroy these (radical left) networks and make America safe again for the American people. It will happen, and we will do itin Charlie's name.
Previously, Miller had claimed there was an "organized campaign that led to this assassination," either a lie or evidence of ignorance beyond imagination.
On September 15, hosting Kirk's podcast a few days after the murder (no trying to score political points there!), Vice President James David Vance had stated
And importantly, we have to talk about this incredibly destructive movement of left-wing extremism that has grown up over the last few years and, I believe, is part of the reason why Charlie was killed by an assassin's bullet.
That same day, President Trump, the self-proclaimed "King of America" who has called the USA "evil," remarked ".... the radical left really is- causes a lot problems for this country. I really think they hate our country." In his very first statement after the crime, Donald spoke from the Oval Office and blamed the radical left for the killing of Kirk, contending "this rhetoric is directly responsible for the kind of terrorism that we're seeing in this country today."
"And it must stop," the President added, explaining that the Administration will be pursuing "the organizations that funded and supported" a whole raft of high-profile incidents he blamed on the left.
That sort of thing should be an inspiration to Jimmy Kimmel as his show resumes on ABC (minus stations owned by Sinclair and Nexstar) tonight, Tuesday, September 23, 2025. As he realizes, Kimmel is only one, albeit one of the best-known,, of Trump's targets. The goal is to shut off all debate and criticism of the King, who recently whined "They're 97 percent against. They give me only bad press... I would think maybe their license should be taken away." Donald's favorite FCC commissioner, chairman Brendan Carr, threatens "we can do this the easy way or the hard way." He knows his brave boss doesn't want his own fingerprints on the murder weapon.
Tonight, Kimmel should promptly omit error on one of his claim, MAGA inspiration for the murderer. Then, he should explain to the American people how the memory of Charlie Kirk is being exploited. President Trump's dreams and schemes, the President's objectives and the stakes involved, ought to be explained in the simple manner which professional entertainers excel at. Unless he clearly and completely backtracks- very unlikely- Kimmel will be criticized by the crowd Donald manipulates and exploits. Thus, he may as well gamble on the public's interest in truth.
Not surprising, given it's Timothy Dolan. Still, reprehensible:
Cardinal Timothy Dolan on Charlie Kirk: "This guy is a modern day St Paul. He was a missionary, he's an evangelist, he's a hero. He's one I think that knows what Jesus meant when he said 'the truth will set you free.'"
— Lucas Sanders 💙🗳️🌊💪🌈🚺🟧 (@LucasSa56947288) September 20, 2025
So, let's play a common and popular game. If Charlie Kirk were a modern day St. Paul, it should be difficult to determine which individual is responsible for a particular quote, offered in no particular order. In each case, I've left one or more words blank because otherwise, it would be obvious in that instance that the words were spoken in the 1st century A.D. or the first century A.D.
1) "Well, (blank) is "an ideological, unintelligent, yet confident fanatic (who) feels entitled to this position."
2) ".... prowling (blank) go around for fun to target (blank) people, that's a fact. It's happening more and more."
3) "If I'm dealing with somebody (in a particular line of work) who's a moronic (blank) woman, I wonder is she there because of her excellence or is she there because of...."
4) "The (blank) party hates this country. They wanna see it collapse."
6) (Blank) is a bumbling dementia filled Alzheimer's corrupt tyrant who should honestly be put in prison and/or given the death penalty for his crimes against (blank).
7) "We're taking our country back from these cockroaches."
8) "And Jewish (blank) have a lot of explaining to do, a lot of decoupling to do, because Jewish donors have been the number one funding mechanism of radical open borders, (blank), quasi-Marxist policy, cultural institutions, and non- profits."
1) Ketanji Brown Jackson; 2) blacks, whites; 3) customer service, black; 4) American Democrat; 5) Kamala Harris, equity; 6) Joe Biden, America 8) donors; neo-liberal.
O.K. O.K., you probably suspected that Mr. Kirk was the author of all those quotations but if he were the modern St. Paul, it would not have been such an easy call. The eighth statement is interesting because "radical open borders" had its parallel in Old and New Testament times, and Luke wrote in Acts "all the believers were together and had everything in common." Radical capitalists, they weren't.
The point isn't that Charlie Kirk was wrong about everything, though resenting Jews, hating blacks, and supporting the execution of an American President for having disagreeable policies normally would not be an impressive character reference. It is more so the deification of Charlie Kirk in death, an effort which normally would not be something a Roman Catholic prelate would be partial to.
ABC has pulled late-night host Jimmy Kimmel off air
indefinitely over comments he made about the shooting of right-wing influencer
Charlie Kirk.
"Jimmy Kimmel Live will be pre-empted
indefinitely," a spokesperson for the Disney-owned network said in a
statement to the BBC.
In his Monday night monologue, Kimmel said the "MAGA
gang" was trying to score political points off Kirk's killing.
On Tuesday, a 22-year-old suspect appeared in court charged
with aggravated murder over last Wednesday's shooting of the 31-year-old
conservative activist. Representatives for Kimmel did not immediately respond
to requests for comment.
Kimmel said on Monday: "The Maga Gang desperately
trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other
than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from
it."
Kimmel was making two assertions: 1) the "kid who murdered Charlie Kirk is "one of them," the "Maga Gang"; and 2) the MAGA Gang is "doing everything they can to score political points from it."
The talk-show host was wrong about the first. As of late Monday when he made his remark, we knew only that alleged murderer Tyler Robinson hated Charlie Kirk, which was rather obvious from the start. Since then, we have learned that Robinson was incensed at the "hate" he believed the victim was spreading and, very likely, had become more keen on gay and transgender rights, which would have put him very much in odds with Kirk.
Jimmy Kimmel wasn't alone in being wrong about Charlie Kirk's assassin, and the evidence points to his accuracy in the contention that the far right is "doing everything they can to score political points from it." As The Guardian reports
Trump
allies have sought to link Kirk’s killing – without evidence – to what they say
is a coordinated leftwing “terror” movement that supports political violence,
funded by progressive and liberal charities. This has led to fears of a
draconian crackdown on free speech.
One of them is the junior Senator from the state of Kansas:
Prior to that, the actual Vice President of the USA, not a talk show host, had
guest-hosted Kirk’s podcast on Monday and said that people
who “see someone celebrating Charlie’s murder” should “call them out”. He
added: “Hell, call their employer. We don’t believe in political violence, but
we do believe in civility, and there is no civility in the celebration of
political assassination.”
Monkey say, monkey do. From the Oval Office only a few hours after Kirk was killed, President Trump issued a video message in which he alleged
Radical left political violence has hurt too many innocent people and taken too many lives. Tonight, I ask all Americans to commit themselves tot he American values for which Charlie Kirk lived and died.
The body was barely cold and we didn't know who the assailant was- let alone his motive- and Donald already had declared that the "radical left" had committed the murder. And in his response to the murder of Kirk and erasing any thought of Donald, House Speaker Mike Johnson stated on Fox News Sunday
People have got to stop framing simple policy disagreements in terms of existential threats to our democracy. You can't call the other side fascists and enemies of the state and not understand that there are some deranged people in our society who will take that as cues to act.
So blaming the left for the assassination of the famous podcaster and activist is not only dangerous in itself, but is coupled with an effort by Donald Trump, daddy to Republican officials, to erase and rewrite history. Oh, but Jimmy Kimmel inaccurately implied that Tyler Robinson was a supporter of the MAGA movement and must be cancelled.
On Tuesday, September 16, the two US senators from Pennsylvania, Republican Dave McCormick and Democrat John Fetterman appeared on a Special Report segment Common Ground with Brett Baier on Fox News. Referring to Donald Trump, the Democrat stated in part
Don't compare him to anyone. And if you do, then you will incite somebody to say, well, now I feel like I have to, to, stop that and take them out. People have seemed to have forgotten that the President took a shot to the head. And can you imagine if that shot would have gone the way Charlie Kirk's went? And what kind of condition our nation would be in?
This such a dangerous time right now. And no why you don't need this- an opportunity to share your opinions on it. Just again, it's appalling and allow folks enough space to grieve. The man hasn't even been buried et. And it's like that's why we wanted to have a conversation that we have to find a way to work together.
“People have forgotten that the president was shot in the head. Can you imagine if that shot would have gone the way Charlie Kirk’s went?” - John Fetterman
— Lucas Sanders 💙🗳️🌊💪🌈🚺🟧 (@LucasSa56947288) September 17, 2025
The "him" in the first paragraph evidently referred to President Trump because in its piece on the segment, The Philadelphia Inquirer has reported
Pennsylvania Sens. John Fetterman and Dave McCormick
denounced the use of terms like “fascism” and “Nazism,” which have been
deployed by some in the Democratic Party to criticize President Donald Trump
and his allies.
If we're to have that "conversation" Fetterman advocates, we first need to be accurate. The attempt on Donald Trump's life took place on July 13, 2024. Note to the Pennsylvania senator: Trump was not elected until almost four months later, on November 5, 2024.
The 20-year-old Pennsylvania man who tried to assassinate
Donald Trump had photos on his phone of the former Republican president,
President Joe Biden and other officials, including Attorney General Merrick
Garland and FBI Director Chris Wray, according to two people familiar with the
matter.
Investigators searching Thomas Matthew Crooks’ devices have
also found that the shooter looked up the dates for the Democratic National
Convention as well as Trump’s appearances, according to the people who spoke to
The Associated Press on the condition on anonymity to discuss details of the
ongoing probe.
Crooks was not dead-set (no pun intended, really) on killing Donald Trump. There were other targets- Democratic targets- he had in mind. The motive(s) of an individual planning to murder several persons or one of any group of people differs from someone intent on killing one specific individual.
But it's consequential for another reason. Fetterman argues "and can you imagine if that shot would have gone the way Charlie Kirk's went? And what kind of condition our nation would be in?"
One need not be a mind reader to know that the Senator was horrified of the possibility that a President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Armed Services (when the latter called into service) would be assassinated and leave the nation leaderless. However, that would not have happened; Joe Biden was, and would have continued to be, President until the following January 20.
That's not to suggest that a successful attack upon candidate Trump would have been less serious or significant than a successful attack upon a President. If a President is assassinated, the 25th Amendment is invoked. The Vice President (who is of the same political party as the president and was chosen by him) becomes President and after a period of mourning, life goes on. Assassination of the presidential nominee of one of the two major political parties, of an individual with roughly a 50% chance of being elected President, goes to the heart of our democratic republic. It eliminates the major challenger to the incumbent Party and can dramatically change the course of the nation.
Either scenario is tragic and potentially devastating. However, there is a difference and a United States Senator, the victim of a stroke, either a) forgot that Donald Trump wasn't yet President; b) thinks thee is no difference between a presidential candidate and a President; or c)intentionally spoke of Donald as a President who suffered an assassination attempt.
That's a consequential error or something worse. The Senator is either mentally impaired (a); ignorant of our constitutional system (b); or (c) is beguiled by Donald Trump.
Fetterman claims additionally "people have seemed to have forgotten that the President took a shot to the head." Virtually no one denies that Trump came within a whisker of being killed, and the incident was not staged.
Nonetheless, Donald Trump either was hit by a bullet fragment- not by a bullet itself- or sustained his injuries in some other manner during the incident. This 79-year-old man takes a blood thinner- a.k.a., aspirin- takes "a shot to the head," is released from the hospital a few hours later, and is left with no scar. That strains credulity for anyone who thinks. Embracing the "shot to the head" story is assuming facts not in evidence.
Donald Trump wasn't President when he did not take a shot to the head, a violent crime people have not forgotten. Aside from those things, Senator Fetterman is thinking clearly.
In an article published on Groundhog Day in 2024, Laurence Pevsner (say that surname three times fast) explains how refusal to apologize has been a characteristic of prominent Republican officials since President Dwight D. Eisenhower. After Ike, there has been a continuous stream of Republicans who recognized the advantage of refusing to apologize. Among others, they included Richard M. Nixon, George HW Bush, George W. Bush, and Mitt Romney.
And, of course, Donald J. Trump. In 2015, Jimmy Fallon asked him
Have you ever apologized? Ever? In your lifetime? Close
your eyes, think back to Baby Donald, when you were little Donny Trump, did you
ever, did you ever apologize?
Trump’s first response was disapproval of the question:
“That was not supposed to be one of the questions… we had a very nice sequence
of questions.” But then he did, surprisingly, drum up an answer. “I fully think
apologizing is a great thing, but you have to be wrong,” he said. “I will
absolutely apologize, sometime in the hopefully distant future, if I’m ever
wrong.”
Democratic officials also have learned not to apologize but no one has perfected the art of denial and claiming perfection as well as Donald has, and he has been elected President of the USA twice. Enter Matthew Dowd, who was interviewed by MSNBC host Katy Tur approximately 3:00 p.m. eastern time on September 10 soon after reports about the shooting of Charlie Kirk. And so
In part, he theorized whether the incident was “a supporter
shooting their gun off in celebration.”
Dowd said Kirk had been "one of the most divisive,
especially divisive younger figures in this, who is constantly sort of pushing
this sort of hate speech or sort of aimed at certain groups."
"And I always go back to, hateful thoughts lead to
hateful words, which then lead to hateful actions," Dowd said. "And I
think that is the environment we are in."
He added, "You can't stop with these sort of awful
thoughts you have and then saying these awful words and not expect awful
actions to take place. And that's the unfortunate environment we are in."
So far, so good, an objective, rational individual would conclude. Dowd was expressing a reasonable opinion, one which reflected the reaction of many people to the assassination. He might have survived that, but then made an uncommon error. He actually expressed regret and took responsibility.
My thoughts & prayers are w/ the family and friends of Charlie Kirk. On an earlier appearance on MSNBC I was asked a question on the environment we are in. I apologize for my tone and words. Let me be clear, I in no way intended for my comments to blame Kirk for this horrendous attack. Let us...
As The Guardian noted, Dowd "served as chief strategist for George W Bush's 2004 presidential campaign and was formerly a political analyst for ABC News." He should have known better. Instead, MSNBC president Rebecca Kutler issued on X a statement reading
During our breaking news coverage of the shooting of Charlie Kirk, Matthew Dowd made comments that were inappropriate, insensitive and unacceptable. We apologize for his statements, as has he. There is no place for violence in America, political or otherwise.
Then Dowd was fired. He was fired, apparently, because while there is- regrettably- a place for violence in America, there is little place for freedom of expression, as responses to responses about the murder have illustrated.
Yellow-bellied Kuttler did not maintain that Matthew Dowd had said anything inaccurate nor vitriolic. He had said something insensitive, perhaps because we had not yet learned definitively that Kirk had been hit, yet alone died. Kutler believed it was "inappropriate," which could have been for any number of reasons, justified, unjustified, or even illegitimate and found it "unacceptable," which was obvious because he was dismissed.
He could be fired in part because he had admitted error and in the absence of him defending his own remarks, few if any would defend him, nor criticize MSNBC for sacking him. (The British have a way with words.)
What Kutler didn't claim was that the analyst had said anything inaccurate nor vitriolic, worth repeating because it is fundamental to an individual's statement. Vitriol can exacerbate a situation and is an extreme expression of insensitivity.
Even that, however, is not central to the matter. (And it's a good thing that our President hasn't set the standard in vitriol.) Accuracy is, or at least should be.
Were Dowd's words accurate? Probably, but we'll never know because in honoring an individual exercising freedom of expression, the search for truth has been abandoned.
Facts are becoming irrelevant. And in a society in which truth is optional, the assertion of rightness holds sway. As argued here, "it's long been apparent that people demanding public apologies aren't actually interested in forgiveness or whether what the person says is actually true... they want submission." Whatever people or the media (especially the media) may claim, the public "tend to still quite reasonably assume that if someone apologizes, then they must have done wrong and should be punished."
"Reasonably" does a lot of work here. Nonetheless, "never apologize, never explain" is an aphorism understood well by Donald Trump, evidently better than any public figure in American history. Matthew Dowd, apparently an individual with a sense of integrity, does not, or at least did not before this episode.
You can't accuse the widow of Charlie Kirk, Erika Kirk, of cowardice. She had laid down the gauntlet and is eager to get it on.
My heart goes out to her, but this is an irresponsible, divisive thing to say. Who are the “evildoers” who killed her husband? Who is the “they?” A 22yr old white male from Utah shot & killed her husband. We don’t yet know why. Anyone out there using “they,” as in “they” did… https://t.co/xMVx7DXlI3
Mrs. Kirk states "They killed Charlie because he preached a message of patriotism, faith, and of God's merciful love."
Racial bias as the hallmark of patriotism and faith. And nothing spells "love" like describing Ketanji Brown Jackson as "an ideological, unintelligent, yet confident fanatic," Kamala Harris as "the jive speaking spokesperson of equity," and Mehdi Hasan as "a prostitute with a British accent" (for his alleged support of pharmaceutical companies) who should be "(sent) back to the country he came from. Revoke his visa."
Nonetheless, he shouldn't have been murdered. His angry widow continued
They should all know this: if you thought that my husband's mission was powerful before, you have no idea. You have no idea what you have just unleased across this country, in this road, you have no idea. You have no idea the fire that you have unleased that's in this wife. The cries of this widow will echo around the world like a battle cry.
Were I to honor Charlie Kirk, doing as he was wont to do, I'd quote Scripture, here Paul in Romans 12:19 (repeated in Hebrews 10:30): "Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: 'It is mine to avenge; I will repay,' says the Lord." However, Erika Kirk has reason, even justification, for bitterness. She can be forgiven her spitefulness and animosity.
But toward whom? In the news conference announcing the arrest of Tyler Robinson, Utah governor Spencer Cox explained
.... Violence is violence, and there is one person responsible for what happened here, and that person is now in custody and will be charged soon and will be held accountable. And yet, all of us have an opportunity right now to do something different.
There is one person responsible for what happened here.
Cox notwithstanding, the right is typically blaming unnamed persons of the left. Elon Musk remarked "the Left is the party of murder." Laura Loomer charged "They sent a trained sniper to assassinate Charlie Kirk while he was sitting next to a table of hats that said 47. You could be next.... The Left are terrorists."
Failed Arizona congressional candidate Blake Masters tweeted "This: A thousand times this. Left-wing violence is out of control, and it's not random." Oath Keeper founder and January 6 criminal Stewart Rhodes asked the President to "declare the left in this country is in obvius open rebellion against th law of the United States. They're committing insurrection, they're aiding and abetting an invasion, and they're blocking the execution of federal law" (hypocrisy, anyone?) Stephen Miller wife Katie Miller wrote on Musk's platform "It's a real treat to see all these Liberals condemn political violence now. You called us Hitler. You called us Nazis. You called us Racists. You have blood on your hands."
There have been many others who blame unnamed "liberals" or the "left-wing" or "they." Some of them are prominent, and some unknowns on X twitter. And of course, Donald Trump, who on the ironically named Truth Social slammed the "radical left" and claimed "this kind of rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism that we're seeing in the country today."
No, it's not. If Donald wants to find someone who has been "directly responsible" for what he irresponsibly alleges is "terrorism," he need only look in the mirror. However, even he is not directly responsible for any of it. It is the perpetrator himself who carried out these murderers- and was able to do so only with a firearm.
The Apostle Paul, understandably, will not be heeded. Mrs. Kirk appears to be very articulate and a skilled speaker. In GOP world, her statement will be seen as an eloquent expression of macho vengeance and sense of victimhood, embodied so effectively in Donald Trump. Thus- other than "something" rather than "someone-" J.D. Vance would be wise to take heed of the famous quote of legendary black pitcher Satchel Paige: "Don't look back; something might be gaining on you."
(Note: this post was composed shortly before the arrest of Tyler Robinson for the murder of Charlie Kirk. The apprehension, though relevant to this issue, changes little.)
Even before FBI director Kash Patel, in the interests of transparency, came out and lied to the American people about the apprehension of the murderer of Charlie Kirk, it had begun. The allies of President Trump swung into action. TIME reports
Katie Miller, the wife of White House deputy chief of staff
Stephen Miller, posted on X, “It’s a real treat to see all these Liberals
condemn political violence now. You called us Hitler. You called us Nazis. You
called us Racists. You have blood on your hands.”
“The Left is the party of murder,” Elon Musk, the
billionaire tech mogul who has frequently espoused right-wing views, posted on
his social media platform X.
Musk shared his comment alongside a post by venture
capitalist and political activist Shaun Maguire, who said: “The Left lectured
us for the last decade about the dangers of violence from the Right … The
danger was actually on the Left.”
“The Left are terrorists,” posted far-right political
activist and conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer. Loomer added that Kirk’s death
only portends “more targeted” assassinations. “You could be next,” she warned.
“We must shut these lunatic leftists down. Once and for all. The Left is a
national security threat,” she said in another post.
With few clues as to the assassin's identity, their minds already had been made up. So had the mind of the Capitol's leading bathroom obsessive:
Nancy Mace's very first words to reporters on Charlie Kirk was "democrats own what happened today"
When @ryanobles followed up about if that means Republicans "own" the shooting of Minnesota lawmakers she says "are you kidding me?"
More calmly, yet more ridiculously, we hear from a Senator from Oklahoma:
Mullin: When are the Democrats going to stand up and apologize for the hatred and the lies that they have fed their base that has led to these actions? pic.twitter.com/nXAHb2PPVC
Referring to Democrats, Mullin claims "we're not the ones out there who are trying to silence them."
Evidently, someone forgot to tell President Trump because
Sitting behind the Resolute desk on Wednesday, Trump
nonetheless said: “Those on the radical left have compared wonderful Americans
like Charlie to Nazis and the world’s worst mass murderers and criminals. This
kind of rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism that we’re seeing in
our country today, and it must stop right now.
“It’s long past time for all Americans and the media to
confront the fact that violence and murder are the tragic consequence of
demonizing those with whom you disagree day after day, year after year, in the
most hateful and despicable way possible,” Trump added.
That runs contrary to the bulk of the president’s rhetoric
over the past several years. On the campaign trail, Trump said that it was
impossible to get along with political rivals.
“These are horrible people. Oops, we should get along with
everybody. They’re horrible people. Some people you just can’t get along with,”
he said in the final days of the 2024 presidential campaign.
The guy who calls the press "the fake news" and "enemy of the people," called Kamala Harris "mentally impaired" and "mentally disabled," and declared former President Obama "guilty of treason," pardoned armed and unarmed terrorists on 1/6/21 rioters while calling them "hostages," now accuses the "radical left" of being "directly responsible for the terrorism that we're seeing in our country today."
But Trump knows what he's doing. According to TIME, Supreme MAGAt and unofficial, influential Trump adviser Laura Loomer responded to the assassination with "We must shut these lunatic leftists down. Once and for all. The Left is a national security threat." Conservative political strategist Joey Mannarino posted "The Democrat Party must be classified as a domestic terror organization and their members & leaders treated accordingly. Enough is enough."
Sean Davis, the CEO and co-founder of right-wing media outlet the Federalist, called the Democratic Party "a domestic terrorist organization whose most fanatics will not hesitate to murder their political opponents."
Other remarks were even more dangerous. Ian Miles Cheong, a well-known conservative commentator from Malaysia, referred to the right-wing cause celebre Iryna Zarutska, a Ukrainian woman murdered in a stabbing in North Carolina on August 22. Cheong posted "Charlie Kirk wasn't the first victim in this war. He was the second. The first victim was Iryna Zarutska. This is war."
Ian Miles Cheong, a conservative commentator from Malaysia,posted, “Charlie Kirk wasn’t the first victim in this war. He was the second. The first victim was Iryna Zarutska,” referring to a Ukrainian woman who waskilled in a stabbingin North Carolina on Aug. 22 and has become the face of anti-crime rhetoric largely from the right. “This is war,” he added.
In one post, Wisconsin Representative Derrick Van Orden wrote "May the mighty wrath of vengeance fall upon the Brown Shirts who are responsible for this" and in another "The democratic Party has been fostering, a 21st century Civil War. I would encourage them if you look at the results of the last one that they started."
My personal "favorite" is from the President of Students for Life, an organization which proclaims in all caps on its website "ABOLISH ABORTION:"
“In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” -Judges 21
This is a new civil war.
One that we must fight with love to restore a Culture of Life.
No better way to restore a "culture of life" than to start a civil war, apparently. Yet, because of his prominence- a little in Hollywood and a little on social media- an even more dangerous reaction(s) came from James Woods:
I enjoyed dinners with Charlie, but worried for his safety. The left says they want “national conversations.” Charlie Kirk actually did just that. In the lion’s den, no less, at left leaning venues, hoping facts and common sense would prevail.
Charlie Kirk was 31 years old. There is no doubt he would one day have been one of our most profoundly qualified candidates for President of the United States. The unrelenting hatred spewed by Democrats took his life and the possibility of a great president for all of us. pic.twitter.com/224qMdr1iz
There are far more examples TIME lays out more right-wing rhetoric about "the party of murder;" "this is war;" and "the left must pay." As a whole, they paint the picture of a GOP base which agrees with President Trump that "these are horrible people" whose "kind of rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism that we're seeing in our country today and it must stop now."
It probably was not "terrorism." (Nor everything violent which we disapprove of is terrorism.) However, that's an issue for another day. Donald is right that "it must stop now." But there will be no effort to enact gun safety legislation and little, if any, funding for mental health services cut by recent passage of the President's budget and spending megabill.
No, the hard core Trump supporters know what their god meant when he said the rhetoric "must stop now." Woods, Hawkins, Cheong, and the other prominent and relatively unknown individuals who have called for cracking down on their political opponents understand Donald Trump, as do the millions of individuals who hear and read their words. So did the violent right when President Trump in debate in 2020 recommended "Proud Boys, stand back and stand by," which was followed by the insurrection at the Capitol on January 6, 2021.
At that confrontation with fellow candidate Joe Biden, Trump added "But I'll tell you what, I'll tell you what, somebody's got to do something about antifa and the left because this is not a right-wing problem." Aided by the assassination of Charlie Kirk, the Democratic Party- which is the (somewhat) "left" party of American politics is being substituted for Antifa. . And when the individual who said five years ago "somebody's got to do something," now says "it must stop now," he's hoping that his more ardent supporters translate that to "civil war."
