Posted on 07/16/2024 11:44:35 AM PDT by Sam77
ABC News veteran anchor George Stephanopoulos made a nonsensical claim that Former President Donald Trump contributed to the “violent rhetoric” that led to an assassination attempt against him.
Stephanopoulos’s disgusting claims came just 24 hours after the near-fatal incident.
The discussion began with anchor Martha Raddatz addressing claims suggesting President Joe Biden‘s involvement in the attack.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailyfetched.com ...
He knows libtards have brought us to this point and now they’re playing mind games for the stupid
Lol total projection
There has been no “violent rhetoric” from Trump. Georgie here, Bill Clinton Press Secretary, working hand in hand with the DNC has deliberate lied by omission by purposefully misquoted Trump to the US people to foster that myth.
One thing the Dims have in common with Muslims: they like to blame the victim.
because they always project.
the MSM incited the attempted murder.
NO ONE HAS RESIGNED.
1. Speech: A public figure or group disseminates violent, inflammatory rhetoric via mass-media, directed at people or groups of people, sometimes suggesting or legitimizing the use of violence. This speech tends to be protected due to the use of ambiguous coded language, dog whistles, jokes, hints, and other subtext in statements that fall short of a criminal threshold for causation. Other themes identified include black and white good vs. evil narratives as well as painting an enemy as a mortal threat, which have been compared to the radicalization techniques used by terrorist groups. These attacks are often repeated and amplified inside a media echo chamber.
2. Speaker(s): Typically the speaker is an influential political or media figure, who is referred to as the "stochastic terrorist" for his or her alleged indirect culpability for the attack. The instigator(s) or "stochastic terrorist(s)" may or may not knowingly use this technique to attack and intimidate enemies, nonetheless, the effect remains the same. The public figure can plausibly disclaim any subsequent attack, as their words were not an explicit call for violence, and because of the lack of a direct organizational link between the instigator and perpetrator of the attack. The public figure cannot be prosecuted for his or her statements so long as they do not meet the legal definition of incitement. This is the key distinction between stochastic terrorism and other forms of terrorism. In the U.S., the 1969 Supreme Court case Brandenburg v. Ohio held that violent, inflammatory speech cannot be criminalized unless it is intended to, and likely to, result in imminent lawless action. However, speech can be quite dangerous even if legal.
3. Inspiration: An individual or group, without any ties to known terrorist groups, hears the speech and becomes motivated to commit violence against the target of the speech, believing it will further a political or ideological goal.
4. Attack: An attacker commits an act of terrorism that could include physical violence, threats, or other acts meant to harm, instill fear, intimidate. The victims may receive or fear physical attacks, (online) harassment, and death threats. This can have a chilling effect, as many victims do not have the resources for adequate security.
5. Probability: While difficult to predict each individual act of violence due to the disconnected chain of causality, the speech makes threats and terror attacks more likely. These attacks observed as a collection have a statistically valid relationship, even if individual attacks are too random (stochastic) to predict precisely.
and yet, the Clinton lackey is till employed . . .
abc’s trump brought it on with his violent rhetoric uses out of context examples and shows they are desperate to do anything to stop trump.
i am looking forward to the retribution that is coming
Hey, Georgie, why didn’t you ask Biden what “challenge” Biden meant when he said he wasn’t worried about being able to beat Trump this time around because Trump was very soon going to be challenged in a way he’d never been challenged before?
You know - in that interview you had with him just a couple days before the SS left an ideal assassin location wide open and refused to neutralize a known shooter pointing at Trump even though they had him in their sights for at least a minute before he fired on Trump....
Keep running your mouth Stephanopoulos. Keep it up!
Stepinpoopalot is a vile little DNC muppet.
Keep spinnin’ DB’s!
You look stupider by the day!!
Violent rhetoric? Gee George.....you should hear what Amber Rose had to say about the enemedia last night..she might not have mentioned your name but I think she was talking about you.
Snuffalufuguss got the message last week. Get on message or get fired.
Old George Staphylococcus is essentially making the argument that if a pretty girl wasn’t pretty, she wouldn’t get raped, so it’s her fault for stirring up the crazy guy.
Appropriate logic for a Clinton.
He said this so Liberals could go on calling Trump the new Hitler who will imprison women who had abortions, and put sanctuary seeking refugees in cages, Take votes from women and impose prohibitions on smoking and drinking.
If Stephie keeps it up, someone is going to show him just what 'Violent Rhetoric' looks like up close and very personal.
Leftists project their guilt onto others.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
