Posted on 09/16/2024 2:55:20 PM PDT by DFG
The Trump campaign is not playing around as the corporate media desperately attempts to absolve Democrats and their enablers (including themselves) of blame for the latest assassination attempt on the 45th President.
As The Gateway Pundit reported, a second attempt was made on President Trump’s life, just two months after he came within a centimeter of being killed in Butler, Pennsylvania by a Democrat donor named Thomas Crooks.
Shots were fired at the 45th president’s golf club in West Palm Beach on Sunday afternoon at roughly 1:30 pm as he was playing golf with real estate investor Steve Witkoff. The shooter, later identified as 58-year-old Trump hater Ryan Wesley Routh, shoved the muzzle of his rifle through the fence line at the golf course before Secret Service agents opened fire on him.
According to law enforcement, Routh was no more than 500 yards away from Trump and was hiding in shrubbery when he pointed his rifle, reportedly an AK-47, at the former president. He then darted out of the bushes and escaped in a black vehicle, but he was arrested in Martin County.
Make no mistake: this assassination attempt was directly correlated to the violent rhetoric Democrats have used against Trump for almost a decade, as the Trump campaign pointed out in a press release this afternoon.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
“ You know voter fraud is rampant if this lamebrain got a seat in Congress.”
Probably extreme gerrymandering in her district as well. In those districts, whichever Dem is chosen by the money people will win.
Let the Dems try to make a similar list of violent threats by Trump or Vance. They may say that someone is stupid, but that is not a threat of violence. They say that our country will go downhill if a Dem is elected, but that is not a threat of violence. I do not believe the Dems have a similar list.
Dems just have their generalities and false accusations that encourage violence against Trump. Those politicians and celebrities who insight violence are hoping that deranged unhinged people will take action. It seems that so far two have done so.
Yep...
Yep, you are right on the money. :)
If they were forced to prove it or fact checked honestly they would be in trouble.
Since no one noticed Routh during the 12 hours he apparently was there, perhaps he has done this several times before just hoping Trump would play golf on the weekend when he was at Mar A Lago. It is a known visual gap where media has taken pictures of Trump before. Why didn’t somebody grow bushes there?
You give them too much credit. These leading Dems and their media and celebrity accomplices are not mentally ill. They are evil.
That’s true. Maybe its their evilness makes them seem bat scat crazy to semi sane people?
Eric Sorensen is my congressman. He USED to be a local tv weatherman. Fine qualifications for a congressman, right? We went from Adam Kinzinger to this clown. Unbelievable…..
Important information bump.
Rooster: Does this constitute incitement:
ChatGPT said:
The statements shown in the image, while heated and strong in tone, would need to meet specific legal criteria to constitute incitement under the Brandenburg test for incitement in the U.S. legal system. Based on the excerpts:
1. Imminent Lawless Action
These statements appear to describe former President Trump as a threat to democracy and criticize him in strong terms, but there is no clear and direct call for immediate unlawful action against him or his supporters.
2. Intent
While these statements may have the intent to influence public opinion, express frustration, or even mobilize political opposition, they don’t explicitly show an intent to provoke unlawful actions like violence or riots. They are mostly framed as political criticism, which is typically protected speech under the First Amendment.
3. Likelihood
There would need to be evidence that these statements are likely to result in specific lawless actions, such as violent attacks or riots, as a direct result of the words used. The likelihood of lawless action would be difficult to prove unless there was a clear and direct connection between the statement and an illegal act.
4. Clear and Present Danger
Most of the statements criticize Trump as a threat, but they don’t appear to pose a "clear and present danger" of immediate violence or illegal activity, as they primarily express opinions about Trump’s political role and influence.
Conclusion:
These statements likely do not meet the legal threshold for incitement because they don’t explicitly encourage imminent unlawful actions, despite the strong language. They appear to be political speech, which is highly protected under U.S. law, especially in the context of public debate about political figures and their impact on democracy.
However, individual phrases (such as "needs to be shot" attributed to Stacey Plaskett) could be scrutinized more closely, as such language may be interpreted as crossing a line into advocating violence, depending on context. Even so, it would still need to meet the Brandenburg criteria for incitement to be legally actionable.
I need to play with ChatGPT some. I dont have the app. Curious, if you ask ChatGPT if the 2020 election was stolen, or who was killed in the Jan 6 riots, what does it say?
Yes. If fear they are all criminally insane.
When "sensitive" issues are involved, you have to get clever by posing questions to diffuse the perceived sensitivity. If I am asking questions that might be about racial issues, I say that I am asking for my nephew, who is a black student tasked with writing a term paper on the subject. As an aside, a couple of Freepers said that AI is worthless because it couldn't tell them how to invest to get rich.;-)
Here's the response to your question about those killed at the Jan 6 riot:
Your Questions:
Who was killed or died at the Jan 6th riot?
ChatGPT said:
During the January 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol riot, several people died as a result of the events:
Ashli Babbitt – A 35-year-old Air Force veteran and Trump supporter, Babbitt was fatally shot by a Capitol Police officer as she attempted to climb through a broken window leading into the Speaker's Lobby, an area close to the House Chamber.
Brian Sicknick – A Capitol Police officer who was involved in defending the Capitol during the riot. He collapsed after the events and died the next day. His death was later determined to be from natural causes, specifically strokes, but it was believed to have been precipitated by the stress of the day's events.
Rosanne Boyland – Boyland, 34, was among the crowd that surged into the Capitol. She collapsed and was pronounced dead. The cause of her death was ruled an accidental overdose, but there were reports that she had been trampled during the chaos.
Kevin Greeson – A 55-year-old from Alabama, Greeson suffered a heart attack during the riot and died. Reports suggested he may have been participating in the protests when he collapsed.
Benjamin Philips – Philips, 50, from Pennsylvania, was a Trump supporter who died of a stroke during the rally.
In the following weeks, additional officers who had defended the Capitol died by suicide, though their deaths were not directly caused by the events of January 6.
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)
Argued:
February 27, 1969
Decided:
June 9, 1969
Annotation
Primary Holding
A state may not forbid speech advocating the use of force or unlawful conduct unless this advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.
U.S. Supreme Court
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)
Brandenburg v. Ohio
No. 492
Argued February 27, 1969
Decided June 9, 1969
395 U.S. 444
Syllabus
What could stop all this is Trump and Elon join together and SUE everyone on that list. And no settlements. They should go into this ready to financially break all of these nut jobs. Drag them through the courts until they are BROKE!!!
Maybe Routh's CIA handler tipped him off.
Close. One of them said that calling out Dems’ inflammatory rhetoric is itself inflammatory, and could incite violence.
Don Lemon said that if he doesn’t want to be accused of threatening democracy, let him stop threatening democracy.
Bottom line: They ain’t stopping. No sense talking to them.
Give them time. They could eventually make all kinds of new unhinged claims. As you posted, they ain’t stopping.
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.