Did Biden call for a hit on Donald Trump?

By Matthew Hayward

In a time when discussions of civil unrest and even civil war permeate the national conversation, on July 8, 2024, President Joe Biden made a statement to his donors that has since sparked significant controversy: "We’re done talking about the debate, it’s time to put Trump in the bullseye." This remark, coming from the highest office in the land, raises serious concerns about the impact of such language on an already tense political environment.

With the nation still reeling from January 6th, where Trump has been alleged to have incited an insurrection, and the ongoing heated debates about election integrity, Biden's words fanned the flames of division.

Given Biden's access to intelligence from agencies like the FBI, CIA, and NSA, which are acutely aware of the effects of political radicalization, it cannot be argued that Biden was unaware his comments could be interpreted literally, especially when his supporters and the liberal media regularly quote Trump out of context alleging he was being literal about all sorts of hyperbolic statements.

For example, Trump's comment about being a dictator for a day was clearly a joke, yet it has been taken out of context by critics to suggest that he genuinely harbors authoritarian ambitions. Similarly, during a White House coronavirus task force briefing on April 23, 2020, Trump suggested that disinfectants could potentially be used to treat COVID-19, which was widely misinterpreted as a serious recommendation for people to inject bleach. In both cases, only those deeply entrenched in partisan narratives would take these comments at face value.

Historically, we've seen the power of presidential rhetoric to either calm or inflame public sentiment. From FDR's fireside chats that reassured a nation during the Great Depression to the divisive speeches that have occasionally emerged in recent years, the spoken word from the Oval Office holds immense sway. In Biden's case, his comment about Trump could only exacerbate tensions and incite individuals already on edge.

The consistent rhetoric from Biden and other prominent political leaders about "democracy being on the ballot" further heightens this risk. When the narrative suggests that a political opponent is a direct threat to the nation's democratic fabric, it can motivate individuals to take extreme actions, believing they are defending their country from an existential threat.

The legal landscape adds another layer of complexity. The recent Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. United States on July 1, 2024, has granted broad immunity to Presidents for their official acts. This decision, while primarily focused on shielding former President Trump from prosecution for actions during his tenure, extends to all sitting presidents, including Biden. This means that even if Biden's words were found to incite violence, the immunity conferred by this ruling could protect him from legal consequences.

This situation underscores a broader issue about the boundaries of presidential speech and the responsibilities that come with such a powerful platform. Should it be legal to call for your opponent to be put in the crosshair, easily taken out of context to be associated with assassination, similar to how the mob works, not ordering hits but instead just telling people to take care of their problems?

Sources:

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969

Research on political rhetoric and radicalization

USA PATRIOT Act and its implications

Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act

Trump v. United States, 2024

Grassroots Revolt Against GOP Elitism

By Matthew Hayward In the complex arena of political strategy, even those who occupy the highest echelons of power can falter, demonstrating a profound disconnect between their strategic intentions and operational execution. The recent failure to secure the endorsement for their preferred candidate, Dave Reichert, is not merely a setback; it is a revealing exposé of the grave strategic missteps at the heart of the Republican party's establishment in Washington State. These seasoned campaigners, these stewards of conservative strategy, have evidently underestimated the critical importance of grassroots engagement. While I acknowledge the logic behind promoting an established politician strategically positioned geographically and perceived as moderate in our swing state—a strategy driven by considerations of electability, which admittedly has its merits—the incessant focus on this argument and complete lack of any meaningful engagement and education has alienated the grassroots yet a...

The Heavy Toll of Reclaiming Freedom

By Matthew Hayward The struggle for freedom has been a recurring act in the grand theater of human history. Yet, there is a philosophical argument that once freedoms are lost, they are irretrievably gone. This perspective, while disheartening, merits exploration. It's a chilling echo of the words of the trailblazing libertarian Claire Wolfe, "America is at that awkward stage; it's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." The first act in this tragic play is the rise of technology. As we advance technologically, the tools of distraction become more potent. The Roman Coliseum has been replaced by the smartphone, a device that can pacify and distract with unprecedented efficiency. This technological pacification, while seemingly benign, has a sinister side. It diverts attention from the erosion of freedoms, making it easier for those in power to chip away at our liberties unnoticed. Consider the pervasive surveillance facilitated by our ...

The Quiet Surrender of Liberty

By Matthew Hayward The slow poison of complacency is the death of the fighting spirit. History is filled with examples of once-free people who gradually surrendered their liberty, not in a single stroke but through a series of quiet concessions. Tyranny often doesn’t arrive with the sound of thunder; it creeps in like a thief in the night, taking advantage of human complacency. The most maddening aspect of this process is not the power-hungry forces behind it, it is the passive, apathetic acceptance by the very people it seeks to control. Complacency is the death knell of liberty. It dulls the senses, erodes vigilance, and normalizes oppression over time. What once sparked outrage and resistance becomes routine, accepted as the new normal. The body scanners at TSA checkpoints, the Patriot Act, the ever-expanding surveillance state, each started with public protests and fiery debates. Now, these violations of privacy and freedom are woven into the fabric of everyday life. Why do pe...

Search This Blog