Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version Share this


East County News Service

Rep. Duncan Hunter defends Trump's remarks

August 10, 2016 (Washington D.C.) – Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is drawing fire for remarks that many believe were intended to incite gun owners to shoot Hillary Clinton, his rival, and potentially, justices she may appoint to the Supreme Court if elected. Trump’s campaign has said he only meant to encourage political action, not violence.

At a rally yesterday in North Carolina, he stated that Clinton wants to “abolish the Second Amendment” right to bear arms (though Clinton has never said this).  Trump then appeared to incite assassination, stating,” By the way, and if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks.  Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know.”  View video:

Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign and Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said Trump’s statement was “repulsive — literally using the Second Amendment as cover to encourage people to kill someone with whom they disagree,” the Los Angeles Times reports.

Bernice A. King, daughter of murdered civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., called Trump’s remarks “distasteful, disturbing, dangerous.”

Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook swiftly sent out this statement after a barrage of criticism. “This is simple — what Trump is saying is dangerous. A person seeking to be the president of the United States should not suggest violence in any way.”

Clinton super PAC Priorities USA went even further. ”Donald Trump Just Suggested That Someone Shoot Hillary Clinton,” the group’s spokesman Justin Barasky wrote in an email to media. “THIS IS NOT OK.”

Trump spokesman Jason Miller tried to downplay the inflammatory remarks, claiming Trump was merely urging gun owners to support his campaign – not take aim literally.  “It’s called the power of unification — 2nd Amendment people have amazing spirit and are tremendously unified, which gives them great political power,” he stated, CNN reports.

But former National Security Administration director Michael Hayden observed, “You’re not just responsible for what you say, you are responsible for what people hear.”

Many people believed they heard Trump call for gun owners to kill Clinton, the Democratic nominee—and fear that some mentally unstable followers of Trump could take his seeming call to arms seriously.

Rep. Eric Swallwell, a California Democrat, called on Twitter for the Secret Service to investigate, Politico reports. “Donald Trump suggested someone kill Sec. Clinton. We must take people at their word. @SecretService must investigate #TrumpThreat,” he wrote.

The Secret Service has issued a statement that it is aware of the threat, but has not clarified whether it has discussed concerns with Trump. The Secret Service is providing protection to both Clinton and Trump on the campaign trail. It is a federal crime to threaten anyone under Secret Service protection.  A veiled incitement to others to commit violence against a presidential candidate may not meet the legal standard as a crime—though it could potentially result in a crime occurring if anyone took action based on Trump’s inflammatory words.  

The comments, at the very least, showed a shocking disregard for the safety of Hillary Clinton and the lives of future judicial candidates.

But National Rifle Association spokeswoman Jennifer Baker called the uproar over Trump’s remarks a “distraction created by the dishonest media,” according to the Guardian newspaper.

Republican House Speaker said perhaps Trump was joking, but added pointedly, “You should never joke about something like that.”

One defender who has emerged is Rep. Duncan Hunter, who represents much of East County. In a CNN interview, Hunter said "He can be inarticulate at times" and noted Trump is a businessman, not a politician.  However Hunter indicated he did not believe Trump meant his words as a call for violence.



It's the current administration which sets the killing example.

President Reagan banned foreign assassinations by executive order, and Obama resumed them. We are presented regularly with news reports of the Number Two killed here and there and suspected terrorists killed here and there, often using explosive rockets fired by drone aircraft at people in other countries whose movements are supposedly suspicious, so they and anyone near them is killed. Hawkish Hillary crowed about killing a foreign leader, actually a US ally a the time, Libya's Gaddafi. "We came, we saw, he died" as she smiled -- here. Even US citizens are fair game, one was killed in Yemen. So much for the concept of justice. . . . This sets the example. Got an enemy? Assassinate.


we have the slanted opinions of Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook, Clinton super PAC Priorities USA and Rep. Eric Swallwell, a California Democrat. So what. Trump’s campaign has said he only meant to encourage political action, not violence.

And we quoted the National Security Administration director:

But former National Security Administration director Michael Hayden observed, “You’re not just responsible for what you say, you are responsible for what people hear.”


He's right.  See my post elsewhere on this page about Tom Metzger, a white supremacist held responsible in a civil suit for inciting violence among his followers. It bankrupted his organization and he lost his house over it, but a young many lost his life because of  Metzger's words.

Hayden is part of the establishment

and so he has been attacking Trump for months as seen here. And who is Hayden to make legal judgments? He's retired Air Force with no legal education.

Never before

has a presidential candidate been subjected to such negative publicity but since he's non-establishment it's understandable in a country where 90% of the media is controlled by six corporations. Trump contributes to it since he's not a blow-dried talking head politician whose remarks are tailored by marketeers to tell us what we supposedly want to hear, rather he has gained many votes by being a normal human and telling many what they really want to hear, the unvarnished truth. But the millions of people who voted for him must be crazy, right? I don't think so.

Such words can and HAVE resulted in death & injury. Remember

when Sarah Palin ran ads with politicians she didn't like in the crosshairs of a gunsight --including Gabby Giffords?  Yes, the Congresswoman shot by a deranged man who had read Palin's ad and took action. He killed others including Gifford's aide.

There was a Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon, Tom Metzger, who incited a follower to go bash in a black guy's head and kill him. He wound up losing a civil suit that bankrupted a white supremacist organization he founded.  He lost his home and pretty much all of his assets in that suit. Metzer was found guilty of inciting the violence under the doctrine of "vicarious liability."  A $12.5 million judgment was issued against WAR,  the White Aryan Resistance group Metzger founded, of which Metzger, a TV repairman,was responsible for $5.5 million.  How much more might a jury award someone killed because of billionaire Donald Trump inciting some hatemonger to commit violence?

You may remember him - he once won a Democratic Primary here in San Diego and horrified Democratic leaders here did the honorable thing- they endorsed the Republican, who won.  Too bad the Republican leadership today is too dishonorable to disavow a blatant racist. Did you know Trump has been endorsed by the Nazi party and prominent white Supremacists? Metzger himself has admired the"chaos" Trump is causing and other KKK leaders have said he's doing a great job helping them recruit people.

I heard Trump's statements on the radio and it seemed clear to me he was suggesting violence by gun owners. Anyone running for president should be smart enough to know that such inflammatory words could be taken literally by some people, potentially resulting in harm to someone  (in this case,Clinton,or a justice she may appoint.) If someone DOES feel inspired by his statement to go shoot or try to shoot Clinton or judges,Trump could wind up losing a costly lawsuit. 

It's far from the first time Trump has incited violence at his rallies.  Here is a whole  list:  For instance he said of a Black Lives Matter protester, "maybe he should have been roughed up." He urged the crowd to "knock the crap out of them" referring to protesters with tomatoes.  He told another protester he wanted to punch his face. He even told audience members he would pay their court costs if they hurt someone. And you really think he didn't mean to imply violence?  He seems to relish in whipping crowds into a frenzy and inciting violence.

Independent fact-checking,by the way, through the years have routinely found more media inaccuracies on Fox than the other major networks. That said, I have a healthy suspicion of ALL networks and some do have pro-administration biases,though all but MSNBC have tended to lean Republican in recent years, before the rise of Trump who even many Republicans view as a dangerous demagogue.



Why would a candidate IMPLY such a thing? Come on, HE DID NOT!!

Again, the crooked media has made a mountain out of a molehill. It is utter rubbish to believe a person running for president would mean to kill his opponent. Trump is not stupid. In fact he is far smarter than Hillary. It is just another BS STORY FROM THE NEWS CHANNELS THAT HAVE RELATIVES IN THE WHITE HOUSE. Don't believe me? Google it folks. The only news channel not tied to the White House is Fox News. That's why they tell the truth. Obama and the Clintons have made sure the other channels know who butters their bread. What is wrong with a great negotiator and leader of 1,000's of employees running our country? Nothing, because Clinton is a bold face liar and thief, not to mention a murderer!