In the wake of the second assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump, Republicans and all reasonable people are calling on Democrats to tone down their inflammatory language. They shouldn’t need an event like this to do the right thing.
But some are now going one step further, such as Jonathan Chait of New York Magazine, who called Trump a threat to democracy and therefore did not describe his statement as “inflammatory.”
And then there was Hillary Clinton, who was adamant about calling Trump threatening and even seemed to admonish the media for perhaps not doing so: She said the media should have a “consistent narrative” about how threatening Trump is.
Think about that for a moment. The meaning of that language and what it really says. How dare media deviate from the narrative and not say he’s threatening? That’s the narrative, and you all should follow what we’re saying. That’s what she thinks; that’s what many Democrats think. The media’s job shouldn’t be to serve the Democratic narrative. But they think it is.
READ MORE: Liberal journalist makes a clown of himself by doubling down on ‘threat to democracy’ language
Hillary Clinton freaks out with disturbing comments about Trump and free speech,
JD Vance replies
Fox’s Peter Doocy had a great question for White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre that infuriated her. Doocy said the assassination attempt on Trump was only a few days ago, but KJP was in the White House briefing room and called him “a threat.” “How many more assassination attempts on Donald Trump must happen before the President, Vice President and you choose a word other than threat?” he asked her. Great question – embarrassing her with her demonization. But she couldn’t take it.
KJP rages at Fox’s @Pdoocy:
Doocy: “How many more assassination attempts must there be on Donald Trump before the president, vice president – or how about another word other than threat – is given the title?”
KJP: “I disagree with your question.” pic.twitter.com/1YSMDwXqnS
— Media Research Centre (@theMRC) 17 September 2024
KJP then tried to explain that the problem was not what Biden and Harris said; what was threatening was that Doocy dared to question it.
She said she disagreed with the premise of his question. Why? You said it; Biden and Harris have said it over and over again. “It’s also incredibly dangerous the way you ask it,” she said. “Because the American people are watching.” Yes, and they would like to know when you’re going to stop using that language.
Jean-Pierre claimed that the administration condemned political violence, said we need to temper the mood, and that Biden called Trump to ask if he was OK. Yes, all of that is true. But it is also true that they have not heeded their own admonition about wanting to demonize the mood – that they constantly demonize Trump as an existential threat to the nation because that serves their political goals. So she can’t pretend to be offended by the question. But she reiterated that it is “incredibly dangerous” that he would ask the question.
Notice what she doesn’t say here – she doesn’t say they’re going to stop demonizing him. That’s pretty much all Kamala Harris can build on as a campaign platform. And if she’s calling Doocy “dangerous,” is she now attacking the free press too?
No, Karine, what’s threatening is people posting the Democrats’ mantra that Trump is a threat to democracy before they supposedly try to target him. That’s what’s threatening, not Doocy’s attempt to hold you accountable.
Good thing Doocy asked that question because that’s what the public wants to know. And now we’ve got an answer by not answering the question – they’re not going to stop that speech.
