From: allin
The discussion surrounding the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump highlights significant concerns about the nature of political discourse and the potential for rhetoric to contribute to real-world violence [00:09:55]. Following the incident, commentators reflected on the events, the role of various actors, and the broader implications for the political climate in the United States [00:23:00].
The Assassination Attempt on Donald Trump
On July 13th, five days before the podcast recording, an assassination attempt occurred on former President Donald Trump at a rally in Pennsylvania [01:41:44]. A 20-year-old named Thomas Matthew Crooks fired eight rounds with an AR-15 at the former president [02:18:00]. One bullet nicked Trump’s right ear, a detail confirmed by the president on Truth Social [02:26:00]. Tragically, Trump supporter Corey Crispera was killed protecting his family, and two others were critically injured [02:29:00]. Crooks was killed by the Secret Service’s counter-sniper team 26 seconds after his first shot [02:38:00].
Crooks had no criminal record and was not known to the FBI or Secret Service [02:43:00]. He was a registered Republican but also donated $15 to a progressive PAC [02:48:00]. His motive remains unknown [02:52:00]. Leaks from a Senate briefing indicated Crooks wrote on a gaming platform, Steam, “July 13th will be my Premiere watch as it unfolds” [03:03:00]. He possessed a second phone and a detonation device in his pocket, with an explosive device in his car [03:17:00].
The Secret Service’s timeline indicated Crooks was identified as a Person of Interest at 5:10 p.m., spotted with a rangefinder at 5:30 p.m., and on a roof at 5:52 p.m. by the Secret Service, yet Trump took the stage at 6:02 p.m., and shots were fired at 6:12 p.m. [04:01:00].
Debating the Impact of Political Rhetoric
Following the assassination attempt, a significant part of the discussion centered on the role of political rhetoric. One perspective suggested that leaders like Trump and Biden should issue a joint statement condemning violent language and disavow anyone on their teams who uses it [01:30:00]. The argument is that while passionate politics are acceptable, violent language can be interpreted differently by “sick people” or those who are mentally ill, potentially leading to tragic outcomes [01:30:00].
Arguments Against “Both-Sides-ism”
Another view strongly refuted the idea of “both-sides-ing” the issue, asserting that years of Donald Trump’s words have been “perverted and misconstrued” by mainstream media to vilify him [01:41:00]. This perspective argues that the mainstream media has amplified violent rhetoric and associated it with tolerable reactions, leading to alarming sentiments where some hoped the shooter hadn’t missed or justified violence against Trump [01:56:00]. It was noted that while Republicans might criticize Joe Biden’s mental state, they are not calling for his death [01:50:00].
Specific examples of controversial rhetoric mentioned included:
- An exchange between Peter Thiel and Reid Hoffman at Allen & Company, where Hoffman reportedly said, “I wish I had turned him into an actual martyr” in response to Thiel’s comment about funding “lawfare” turning Trump into a martyr [01:50:00].
- A member of Jack Black’s band allegedly stating it was “too bad the shot missed” [01:17:12].
- Biden himself stating it was time to put Trump “in the bullseye” days before the shooting [01:38:00]. While this was acknowledged to be rhetorical, the greater concern was the “level of demonization and vitriol” pursued by Democrats as a campaign strategy [01:11:00].
- The repeated portrayal of Trump as “Hitler,” a “fascist,” or a “threat to democracy” was cited as taking demonization “up to 11,” potentially poisoning the minds of mentally disturbed individuals who might then view assassinating such a figure as heroic [01:23:00]. This was further emphasized by media covers depicting Trump merged with Adolf Hitler [01:20:16].
While acknowledging that “threat to democracy” can be a valid criticism, calling someone Hitler is deemed insightful [01:21:00]. The general consensus was that “reasonable people can parse this and it is something that has occurred on both sides,” and both parties could do better [01:21:06]. The need for debates of ideas in a healthy democracy, without censoring the marketplace of ideas, was also stressed [01:11:31].
Secret Service Incompetence and Calls for Accountability
The incident also raised serious questions about the competence and accountability of the Secret Service [00:03:30]. The fact that the closest rooftop (130 yards away) was not secured was widely mocked and questioned [00:03:31]. The Secret Service head claimed the roof was not secured due to its sloped surface, a statement deemed ridiculous as snipers were on a more sloped roof elsewhere [00:03:38].
Key questions and alleged failures included:
- Failure to cover the most obvious shooting spot [02:43:10].
- A Person of Interest (Crooks) identified an hour before the shooting and spotted with a rangefinder, yet not intercepted, and the president allowed to take the stage [02:53:50].
- Lack of agents stationed at the fence, requiring an SUV to ram it for Secret Service access [02:60:90].
- Delay in getting Trump into the car and the convoy off to a hospital after he was shot [02:73:70].
- Unreleased audio of Secret Service chatter from earpieces, which could provide crucial details about the chain of command and why Crooks was not intercepted earlier [02:70:70].
- The theory that snipers paused because they might have thought Crooks, despite not being in uniform, was a friendly, highlighting concerns about inter-agency communication [03:21:50].
This incident is viewed as another example of institutions failing, akin to the Afghanistan withdrawal, where there is a lack of accountability, resignations, or firings [03:35:10]. It is argued that the Secret Service cannot investigate itself, especially given past incidents like the deletion of text messages from January 6th [03:53:70]. There was a call for the Secret Service Director to resign and for agents to testify on Capitol Hill without fear of reprisal [03:61:30].
Conclusion
The assassination attempt on Donald Trump served as a stark reminder of the volatile nature of the current political dynamics and the potential for extreme rhetoric to incite violence. The intense debate surrounding both the responsibility of political figures for their language and the competence of institutions like the Secret Service underscores a broader concern about public trust and the future of political discourse in the United States.