Trump threatens Sec. Clinton with Gun Nuts, imitates Tinpot 3rd World Regimes

By Juan Cole | (Informed Comment) | – –

Donald Trump said Tuesday there was nothing that his supporters could do if Hillary Clinton won and got “to pick her judges.” Then he “thought” a moment and amended his pessimism: “Though the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know.”

Former CIA director Michael Hayden suggested that the remark, which implied that an NRA member should assassinate Sec. Clinton, was a criminal offense and that the Department of Justice should look into it: “if anybody else had said this, they’d be out in the parking lot in a police wagon being questioned by the Secret Service.”

My own guess is that Trump is trolling the Obama Department of Justice and hoping to be harassed by the DoJ so that he can claim persecution and martyrdom in front of the public.

Otherwise, some people have gotten in trouble with the law for doing to Trump what he just did to Hillary.

An Egyptian student studying in the US was forced to leave the country rather than face formal deportation after he posted threats to Trump on Facebook.

Richard Deville Jr., 26, of Clarksville, Indiana was arrested on May 12 and charged with felony intimidation after he allegedly put up a video on social media menacing Donald Trump and members of his family. Keith Henderson, the Floyd County Prosecutor, said of the video, where the suspect was sporting loaded guns:

“That’s not political speech, it’s not free speech, that’s criminal speech because he’s threatening someone’s life.”

So maybe Mr. Henderson should express himself equally vehemently about Trump himself.

And, who talks and acts like this?

Moise Katumbi, an opposition politician, was arrested this spring for hiring mercenaries and threatening state security in the DR Congo. His critics say he was intent on making a coup.

Trump is literally acting like a tinpot dictator already!

=====

Related video:

The Young Turks: “BREAKING: Donald Trump Threatens Hillary Clinton With Gun Violence ”

41 Responses

  1. It would never have occurred to me that his remark meant such a thing, and I begin to wonder if all these anti-Trump outpourings may backfire. Few in the UK realized how deeply politicians, banks and big business are distrusted disliked and although those feelings may have focused through the lens of immigration it was basically an ‘up yours’ vote to the establishment. Such feelings are spreading elsewhere in Europe and could well manifest in support for Trump as there is only a choice between Clinton who wears the establishment hat and Trump who seems not to.

    • The problem with Trump is that he makes these innuendo remarks, that he can then plausibly deny. But innuendos are like code words to certain people. In an America that has lost so many to crazed shooters, his talk is dangerous.

      • I would demur and suggest the problem is that the US electorate, and by extension the rest of us who have no say in the matter, are confronted with an all but impossible choice. The factors that will determine which way the US electorate leans will more likely be determined by gut feelings than any considered analysis of what the contenders promise. Surely most people know, subliminally anyway, that no politician can be trusted to deliver what is espoused campaigning. You campaign in poetry. You govern in prose. You have a pretty good idea what you are in for with Clinton and may simply prefer to gamble on Trump. Maybe a business man would be less compulsively destructive. Perhaps he would be more careful with financial resources, more likely to look for a deal than bomb Assad in his Presidential palace. Perhaps this is one case where the devil you don’t know could be better than the one you know only too well. What the hell. What can you lose?

        • Or perhaps up to 40% of Americans have the gut feelings of evil, violent people. Why are you saying we should make excuses for them? Your argument fails because Romney was a businessman who had the advantage of being sane, and there are surely many, many people better than Romney who might have gotten the nomination, but instead these bastards went out of their way to get the most proudly destructive person they could see. This is not a gamble, this is a declaration of war by one group of American citizens on other groups that, in their heart, they want to crush, perhaps up to 100,000,000 of them. You say that’s crazy. I say exactly. They want a madman to do their dirty work, to make the orders official that in their heart they’ve always wanted to follow.

          If they were what you claim, they would have nominated Ron Paul twenty years ago. Paul never gets more than 1% of the vote because they don’t want LESS government, they want WHITE government.

  2. A lot of readers here do not understand the long-term patterns in far-right rhetoric. In the 1990s, some of these extremist hucksters were pushing the idea that Blacks were only “13th Amendment citizens”, implying that a mistake had been made that could be corrected by that Constitutional Convention that they still demand based on terms that would likely involve insurrection. The more recent master narrative of the Right has been to use hatred of immigrants to keep worming away on every legal front to establish a special right to discriminate: from racial profiling at airports, to police rights to regard Blacks as special threats (thus negating the militia movement’s claim to support gun rights for all), to Christian rights to discriminate against LGBT persons for damn near anything. The goal is to restore the legal tradition of special rights that in practice can only be utilized by White Christian conservatives.

    Only a naive person can fail to see the connection between these schemes and the demographic decline of the schemers. Their rhetoric all aims to establish the idea that America is a Republic, not a Democracy. Meaning, it is the property of only certain kinds of people, those who look like the ones who owned it 200 years ago, White Christian property owners who were organized into militias. Small government is easy when it only represents one kind of human, who then are left free to hold their lessers at gunpoint.

    The political line that Trump has taken wanders around on many matters – but when it comes to who qualifies as “real” Americans, it inexorably narrows. Trump and his personality cult are vague about many things, but they know exactly whom to beat up at his rallies. The question of whom his supporters will allow to fully participate in our society becomes far more critical when guns are brought into the equation.

  3. “My own guess is that Trump is trolling the Obama Department of Justice and hoping to be harassed by the DoJ so that he can claim persecution and martyrdom in front of the public.”

    You give Trump too much credit for having tactical forethought. I think it was his usual reckless behavior, only this time he went way beyond bounds by threatening Hillary Clinton with potential assassination by his gun-nut followers.

  4. Jon Adams

    this presidential race is a GAME created by oligarchs. It’s “details” don’t warrant much discussion.

    • Sound like you agree with trump;
      DISCUSSION is that which republicans/trump/oligarchs DO NOT want.
      Any thirdgrade student saying such a thing would cause a lockdown and thereby be interrogated by legal authorities.
      A new slate of puppets is called for.

  5. Billy Glad

    Outrage about “assassination” by people like @cenkuygur obscures the real issues which are law and order and abiding by elections.

  6. Billy Glad

    To suggest that gun owners might not abide by the law of the land if the election goes against them is inflammatory.

    • Your candidate made the statement – not JCole!
      trump expressed a threat and must be publicly questioned.

    • That inflammatory speech has been pouring out of Ted Nugent and a growing number of office-seeking Republicans since 2008. “Second Amendment solutions”, Sharron Angle, remember her?

      Note that Trump didn’t say “gun owners”, he said “Second Amendment people.” Growing numbers of gun-rights proponents are outright saying that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to give the “people” the weapons needed to overthrow the government if necessary. That’s not the same thing as gun owners, but then just as only certain types of Christian seem compelled to organize around a demand for theocratic law, only certain types of gun owner seem to be feel that they are one people, superior to other Americans, whose craving for weapons able to overthrow the government make them fitting to exercise power over the rest of us.

  7. Trump is pretending to make this a spontaneous comment but if you listen to it it is clear he had planned out exactly what words to say in what order. It is completely intentional. It is to my hearing a definite suggestion to “2nd amendment people” to “do something about it” which is like a Mafia don saying “I want this guy taken care of, understand?” What is not clear about that? A felony is a felony and nobody should try to excuse it or explain it away. That he did this could very well actually incite some of his crazies to act. That he said it in this calculated way – calculated to incite violence, and yet calculated to be able to avoid the direct blame because of his trademarked intentional vagueness- is typical of him and very very scary indeed. As Juan points out it is hard for the Secret Service say to respond to because he would use it to claim persecution and rile up his brownshirts even further.

    • Yeah, he’s a master of innuendo. Obama can’t produce his birth certificate so…he must be foreign. Something’s wrong with his response to the shooting in Florida, so…he must have known about it. That’s why it’s dangerous, he implies….he rabble rouses.

  8. Usually tin-pot dictators wait until they have the power before they start threatening to have their foes murdered.

    Trump is the quintessential ugly American Tourist. Crass, loud and happily, willfully ignorant about everything.

  9. The problem with someone as disorganized as Trump is that you never know what they are really thinking. My guess is he was contemplating some kind of resistance to an imagined confiscation of weapons by the feds. That the govt wants to take their guns away is a real concern among Trump’s base. Either way — assassination or rebellion — the remark was inflammatory and he needs to keep walking it back to the political level. It’s okay to try to rally the vote, but it’s not okay to imply that it’s acceptable to disregard the law of the land once the election is settled. We’ve had enough shootings and bombings by extremists on both ends of the political spectrum.

  10. There are consequences to speech. A number of columnists have already noted the similarity to Trump’s pot stirring and Bibi’s irresponsible orchestration of the mob prior to Yizhak Rabin’s murder. I was thinking the same when I watched the video stream yesterday. We’re now in dangerous territory.

  11. Stephen Hatt

    Trump apologist are trying to spin this as talking about voting 2nd Amendment supports. Two facts are critical: (1) Trump was talking about Clinton appointing SCOTUS judges, therefore he was talking about an elected President Clinton and 2nd Amendment people doing something about that. (2) His next utterance was, critically, “That’ll be a terrible DAY.” Trump was not talking about prolonged legislative lobbying over days, weeks and months, he was clearly talking about 2nd Amendment supporters doing “something” about HRC and/or her appointments, and doing it in a single, “terrible day.” Trump was clearly alluding to assassination of Clinton and possibly her appointments, and he was implying that all 2nd Amendment supporters were potential assassins. Alluding to and therefore suggesting the possibility of assassination, is exactly just how many steps away from calling for assassination? I submit that it is precisely one.

    General Michael Hayden, former director of the NSA and of the CIA said if anyone else uttered those words they would be in the, back of a police wagon being questioned by the Secret Service. With Trump, the Secret Service is in the unenviable position of protecting a man they would otherwise at least arrest and question, if not charge. However, the Secret Service is not empowered to chose our presidents and arresting Mr. Trump would unseemingly appear to be doing just that. What a mess and we can lay it all at the feet of Speaker Ryan and his feckless, spineless leadership as well as Reince Priebus and the RNC.

    THe GOP is in headlong collapse but in this crisis lies an opportunity. Now is the time for Hillary Clinton to embrace a coalition government centrist government, one giving nod to some major conservative concerns as well as progressive concerns. It is possible, it is done everyday in government’s elsewhere in lieu of inspired gridlock. How? HRC needs to approach the GOP with an invitation to join her Cabinet. Most appealing would be the positions of Defense, State and Commerce. These positions have often been held by Republicans without any undue impact on domestic policies more relevant to progressives.

    A coalition government would do the most to restore face amongst the GOP, give them skin in the game, end the obstructionism of the radical right, and most importantly give the GOP a chance to rebuild right of center, the political party we need from them to effectively govern.

    A President Clinton could, if she wants, do much to heal the GOP, end the constant squabbling over issues that we should no longer be arguing about, and do much to heal the nation by restoring faith in our basic two party system.

    • Fear not Hillary will fill those positions with neo-con folks just as Obama did – you can count on more needless war and intervention from her.

  12. Trump supporters are a greater threat to our country than the media-created •••clown they spawned.

    Mr Trump had better hope no one tries something stupid against Mrs. Clinton with a firearm – he is fully complicit.

  13. Trump is making the case that Hillary and her knee-jerk supporters, who have done great harm to people in unacceptable counties such as Libya, Iraq, Syria and Palestine, are in fact unstable, and ready and willing to go off the deep end at the slightest provocation.

    So with one hand he uses words to say he is an acceptably Islam hating politico, and with the other he allows the war party to invalidate itself.

    Plus, it is now gun owners versus big gun users. Nice move, Don, nice move.

    • Sir, you have ignored the track record of Trump personally appearing at rallies where his cultists rough up protesters who in no way represent the War Party or “big gun users”. They invariably beat up men like the Black Lives Matter protester in Birmingham, Alabama. I call it unstable and going off the deep end, and they do it at the slightest provocation. But most of all, it is a clear signal as to whom these people believe they must silence in order to make America great again. Not the cops, not the military.

  14. This is the way a republic ends. No, it hasn’t been the best ride for the last 240 years: we committed genocide against the natives, embarked on imperial adventures, had a civil war, and committed more mayhem than I can recount. However in the midst of this horror we have somehow managed to keep the Union together. And we have done so with certain shared beliefs and assumptions that have at times been tested and stretched, but never so willfully shattered as now.

    Look, as noted before by me in comments, Clinton, believe it or not, is a fairly normal candidate: mildly corrupt, reasonably competent in some areas, in others not so much (her hawkishness I could do without). She tilts the scale beyond average by virtue of her experience, which is arguably offset by her weaknesses. But she adheres to the same norms that we have come to expect of a garden-variety candidate: decency in her public comportment qua candidate, adherence to electoral norms, respect for the democratic process. People should be waking up to the fact that democracy and republicanism is much more than free elections and majority rule. It is a set of deep intangibles whose outcome, we hope, is civility, respect, and tolerance.

    But inside Donald Trump are many Julius Caesars, but not because of any military or literary genius. Caesar willfully destroyed the Roman republic, and he knew what he was doing. Trump is attempting to do the same many times over, for his untoward comments are literally legion. He crosses our metaphorical political Rubicon daily.

    But now he has taken it to the literal level. When Rome crossed the line into political violence in 133 BC, with the murder of a tribune, Tiberius Gracchus, there was no turning back. Once that line was crossed (the person of the tribune was sacrosanct), it was easy for Roman senators to murder political opponents. Once that line was crossed, hell, why not do what Sulla did in 88 BC and lead an army against Rome and impose a temporary dictatorship? Once that line was crossed, why not provoke, as Caesar did, a civil war to avenge himself on his political enemies? Once that line is crossed, well, so many enemies are made, how could Caesar ever safely relinquish power? There was no turning back after that moment when Gracchus was murdered in 133, and it ushered in a century of political instability and civil war that did not end until 30 BC.

    You still want to embrace Trump after yesterday? Fine – and you can explain to the dead secret service agent’s family about what a corrupt oligarch Hillary was and how his kids are fatherless because of freedom or party unity or some such bullshit; and yes, I am aware of Hillary’s sanguine foreign policy record. Are you ready for generations of even more political instability in this country? Are you ready for even more economic instability, displacement, and social disruption? Good, because you are going to get it in spades.

    And as always, pars republicana delenda est!

    • Yes, the world is always lecturing the Germans, “How could you not have united against Hitler,” or the Italians, “How could you not have united against Mussolini.” No one ever asks, “Well, how bad did their bourgeois democratic opponents have to be to inspire support for fascism?” No one even remembers who those opponents were today. Because there was nothing those opponents could be that was bad enough to justify the sadistic vindictiveness that empowered fascism and its amazing ability to create tragedies on a scale beyond the sad little countries that carried them out. We think we know how bad America is because of the Clintons. We haven’t scratched the surface of what we’re capable of doing to each other. Trump’s people have got the itch bad.

  15. “The Clinton campaign does not get it. As suggested here earlier the “outrage” the Clinton campaign constructs out of such quotes will only help Trump to win more votes. It will also infuse more mistrust against the media who spread it around. The Trump campaign is already using it for that purpose.

    The best of it, from Trump’s view, is that he now gets another full news cycle of free advertising on every media channel. This while Clinton spends at least $13 million for TV adds around the Olympics where Trump spends $0.”

    link to moonofalabama.org

  16. Really Juan he can claim “Persecution and martyrdom” if the Justice Dept. intervenes. I don’t think he thought this, he is not that smart, he is a loose cannon. He is a Sociopath narcissist and will get worse. That part of society, the media (money) and the GOP accepts him is a reflection of those members. Only tyrants behave like this. Tyrants like Idi Amin among many others.

  17. Sarah Palin did the same thing but she suffered no consequence for an actual assassination attempt with multiple victims. Evidently you can cry fire in political theater.

  18. Trump seems to end each inflammatory statement with an “I don’t know.” I’ m beginning to wonder if it is some kind of coded signal.

    • I think it is a rhetoric device that he believes distances himself from what he just said. Plausible denial. Usually, it’s followed up by throwing the question back to the audience or interviewer, “You tell me.” Together they drip with insinuation, a classic ‘red scare’ tactic.

  19. Look, I don’t like Trump, but you simply can’t verbal him in this way.

    The money-shot is this: “If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks, although the second amendment people – maybe there is, I don’t know”

    He is explicitly talking about a specific topic: the POTUS gets to nominate a judge for SCOTUS.

    Nothing more.
    No less.

    He is simply noting that there is nothing to stop a President Hillary from nominating a judge who has an anti-gun agenda.

    The “second amendment people” he then alludes to is clearly a reference to the possibility that the NRA might be able to apply enough POLITICAL pressure to stop such a nomination. Maybe. He doesn’t know.

    I’m not making this up: the full exchange is here
    link to moonofalabama.org

    In the context of that paragraph Trump says “second amendment people” when he is talking about the NRA as a whole. As a POLITICAL force.

    He isn’t talking violence.
    He isn’t talking “assassination”.

    He isn’t saying anything controversial there, and it is simply outrageous to claim otherwise.

    • Dear Mr. Yeah, Right:

      It does not matter how it was meant, it matters how it was heard, and the general consensus among just about everyone (except his most ardent stooges) knows what he said and meant and had to defend it or walk it back. Btw I note that you omit his follow up that “that will be a horrible day”, and the response of the gentleman sitting behind Trump whose jaw dropped, and who clearly stated how he understood it as Trump intended (i.e., not your way).

      Then you totally decontextualize the whole remark from Trump’s behavior and rhetoric as a whole, which is quite violent. Your whole argument is just special pleading, especially given that Trump’s rhetoric thrives on innunendo, praeteritio, and anacoluthon – lots and lots of anacoluthon (which serves to make his syntax almost indecipherable at times – kinda bad when you are trying to figure out policy on complicated stuff like economics or the Mideast).

      And at this late date do you really think a man who wants to disband Nato, who hates people of color, who doesn’t understand the most basic elements of our nuclear program, who wants to commit war crimes, who has zero commitment to our democratic culture or the Constitution, who denies global warming, who encourages espionage by an adversary, who violates every norm of that which we profess to be decent, just, and civil, should occupy the Oval Office?

      Oh, he didn’t mean when he said Mexicans were druggies and rapists that they really were? Oh, hahaha, what a relief! What a jokester! Clever fellow! Can’t wait for an inarticulate gas-bag to pivot to the thoughtful rhetoric of the White House’s current occupant . . . oh, wait . . . .

      And as always, pars republican delenda est!

  20. Trump speaks in incomplete sentences, and uses vague language. Often there is no way to definitively say what he meant because he throws together a salad of phrases and innuendo.

    And that makes it difficult, at best, to say what he means. So the listener creates meaning that fits his/her worldview. No one can prove that he meant either gun violence or on the other hand, political force from “2nd amendment people.”

    The man is too incoherent. Go back to the virtue of a traditional education and try and parse his sentences!

    Therefore, I disagree with anyone who says that it’s outrageous to claim otherwise. In this case, he ended the infamous 2nd amendment bit by saying “I don’t know.”

    “I don’t know”, he says, and we can’t pin down what he means. Is “I don’t know” true, a rhetorical device, or a bunch of weasel words to wiggle out of responsibility?
    He has repeatedly had to backtrack, and, worse, sometimes not backtracking by sticking to vicious words- e.g. mocking a Gold Star mother and mocking a disabled reporter.

    I’ve met 2 violent criminals that used the same tactics.

    Just because you can’t prove something is threatening does not mean that it’s okay.
    He is threatening. That is the effect of his words.
    Parallel example: A stalker can say, “You better watch out”, and then claim it’s because Santa Claus is coming to town.

    You can argue semantics. You can say he didn’t mean it.
    Or it was sarcasm.
    The Secret Service doesn’t mess around with that.
    They know a threat.
    They have lots of practice.

    • maloken: “You can argue semantics. You can say he didn’t mean it.”

      Ladies and gentlemen, when maloken uses the word “it” we know that Trump is being verballed.

      Now, I don’t like Trump and I would be appalled at the prospect of him becoming President.

      But the man says what he says, and if there is any doubt regarding his meaning then the correct method is to GO AND ASK HIM TO EXPLAIN HIMSELF, you don’t insist that he disavow or endorse what pundit’s say he meant.

      Trump said…. something.

      Pundits like Juan Cole (and opponents like Hillary) then claim that this….. something…. means “Trump threatens Sec. Clinton with Gun Nuts”.

      And it is **that** punditry that then becomes the “it” of maloken’s comment.

      Of course “he didn’t mean it”, precisely because he “didn’t say it”. The pundit’s did when they put *their* words into *his* mouth.

      Now I’ll say this again: I’ve linked to the entirety of Trump’s comment. Everyone is free to read it.

      Trump’s statement is a rambling, incoherent mess. We both agree on that.

      His words could mean what Juan Cole says they mean (i.e. he is calling on gun-nuts to Go A’ Gunnin’) or it could mean what I say they mean (i.e. he is musing that the NRA may be able to block a Hillary-nominated anti-gun judge).

      I personally think that Juan’s interpretation is nonsense.
      You, clearly, think that Juan’s interpretation is spot-on.

      The answer is to be found by ASKING TRUMP WHAT HE MEANT, it is not to be found by asking Trump to defend or disavow Juan Cole’s interpretation of Trump’s rambled musings.

      maloken: “You can argue semantics. You can say he didn’t mean it.”

      Trump need only stand by, retract, or elaborate on WHAT HE SAYS, he is under no obligation to defend or reject what pundits like Juan Cole claim he meant.

      You are insisting that Juan Cole’s interpretation be the message that Trump must either “mean” or “not mean”.

      Why, exactly?

      Juan Cole’s “meaning” is his problem, not Donald Trump’s problem.

      • The “IT” here is Trump would like one of his 2nd Amendment patriots to shoot Mrs.Clinton to protect their right to bear arms. since she is a lying criminal warmonger who will pick up their guns, anyway and is solidly blocking his heist of our White House. In Trumpists ‘ought” world that is “IT.” Feigning ignorance and obfuscating Professor Cole”s well-made assertion is weak. Clearly decoded, Trump wants someone to shoot her. Got it?

Comments are closed.