Did Trump Encourage the Assassination of Hillary Clinton?

Post Reply New Topic

This! I can't stand him.

Why? Do you think a bunch of guys are sitting around going "shoot, we've got all these guns and we hate Hillary, but what are we supposed to do?" until Trump comes along and puts the idea in their heads? You could really say the same thing about any form of demonization, e.g. the kind being directed at Trump by, among others, several posters here, so why is it so different when Trump does it?

Trump is running for POTUS. He said this in front of an audience. To people who feel threatened by Clinton about an issue that concerns the right to bear arms in case of government overbearance. The nuance hits on several levels.

It was reckless.

Yes, self preservation by any means is of course a natural instinct. I just question if God Almighty says anything about it in the Bible, or any holy book.

The man is an insufferable boor. That is why I am voting for him. I hate what the government of the United States has become and Trump affords the possibility of destroying and it is all Legal! This November I am going to do my share of pinning the tail on the donkey. It will be interesting to see if our government can survive Trump.

Donald Trump reckless? Heresy!

Again, do you really think that anyone was on the fence about taking a shot at Hillary, or that the idea hadn't occurred to them, before Trump spoke up?
While we're at it, have gun rights people ever actually committed any political violence against anti-gun people over the issue? I honestly don't know of any examples.

The only intentions one can possibly know are one's own intentions..... Anything else is guesswork.

It's irrelevant. What's at issue are Trump's words and his intention to incite violence.


Intention (criminal law), Wikipedia



Intent has been a part of criminal law for a long time. Not that I think Trump is legally culpable if his words spark a response, but morally yes.

Trump knows he's going to lose. He's already talking about "voter fraud" in Pennsylvania.

Sort of putting the horse before the cart, I would say.

Baal, is it sort of a suicidal feeling? Because he wouldn't only destroy the government, he'd destroy the country... hopefully not the world... arguments like that, though, and worse I've read, make me sigh with relief that I never chose to go there... Rome fell too, although it would be tragic if it had to commit genocide before that happened... well, Nero committed suicide, and along with Hitler Trump would have all the company he'd ever want...

Legally there is either a threat (which is actionable) or there is not. If Trump proposed harm to Clinton, right then and there he could have been indicted for assault. Trump may be an as*hole but he is not a fool.

Is there really a difference?

Inciting violence is a crime. If I went on Youtube right now, and said something really rash like "let's show Donald Trump the power of the second amendment", you can bet I'd be getting a visit from the FBI.

If Trump had really only meant "please use your First Amendment rights to defend your Second Amendment Rights" then why couldnt he have said it that way?

Either (A) he is too dimwitted to put words together into a sentence, or (b) he purposely phrased it that way to encourage violence. There is no other option.

If you're denying he is one thing then you are accusing him of the other thing.

I don't think Trump deserves the benefit of the doubt anymore. Regardless, whatever his intentions, he directly encouraged her assassination with his comment.

The murders have begun. In his own hometown, so the silver lining is that authorities realize who the real terrorist is and at the very least make him feel unwelcome in his own 'tower', unless they can legally take that abomination down.

Yes, there is a difference between threats and incitement, which is legally significant, and the person I was arguing with seemed to be using them interchangeably in an an attempt to win an argument.



I highly doubt it. You really should read the actual US statutes governing these things before attempting to argue your interpretation, otherwise you risk embarrassment. The actual case law involved a man making a comment about shooting LBJ, so it's pretty firmly established that even sitting presidents are fair game for far stronger remarks than Trump's.