I was hoping that Ethics Alarms history buff and house deep-diver would weigh in on the latest Presidential assassination attempt, and he didn’t disappoint.
Here is Steve-O-in NJ’s Comment of the Day on the post, “Predictable Aftermath To Assassination Attempt #3 That Still Must Be Aggressively Addressed…Somehow”:
* * *
What makes me wonder is that the Secret Service didn’t appear to have run everyone staying in the hotel at the time of the event through whatever databases they had. The would-be assassin didn’t have a criminal record, but recent firearms purchases might have popped, which might have made them look again, see that he hadn’t gone through airport-level security, and made them at least check him out. Be that as it may, there is pretty clear evidence of intent here, between the manifesto, the carefully managed trip, and the hotel stay.
This actually makes four tries for Trump, if you count the one before he was elected the first time where the guy tried to grab a security guard’s gun but got grabbed before he could do much. We still know probably the least about Crooks, the guy who came the closest in Butler, PA, because he was shot and killed at the scene and he didn’t leave a clear paper trail.
I’m aware that few of the presidents were universally popular, and that a lot were divisive and had strong opposition. Andrew Jackson was disliked enough (especially in the Carolinas) that three people tried to kill him, although only one while he was president. Lincoln of course was killed by a Confederate bitter-ender (there were supposedly four other attempts to kill him, including one to kill him as he took the train to his inauguration). Garfield was killed by someone clearly crackers. McKinley was shot dead by an anarchist. Taft, Hoover, FDR, and Truman were all targeted for one reason or another. The two PR independence activists who tried for Truman killed a White House policeman. The anarchist who tried for FDR failed but did get the mayor of Chicago. Then of course there is the murder of JFK, the shooting of Reagan, and failed attempts on the next four presidents. As far as I know, Biden was never targeted.
Most of the presidential assassins and would-be assassins were either insane (Guiteau, Hinckley) or extremists of a lost cause or a cause that never was (Booth, Czolgocz, others). There’s nothing insane about this guy. Either that or most of the Democratic Party has gone over the edge. I don’t think that’s the case, though. A lot of it is just cold hate and arrogance. It’s easy to hate someone in the heat of anger. If you still hate someone when the heat of anger has cooled down, or if you were never all that angry when you decided to hate that person, that’s really a problem.
It’s completely normal to dislike Trump. It’s completely normal to believe that his policies are the wrong ones. It’s completely normal to think he is leading the country in the wrong direction. All of that is at least reasonably debatable and there is room for disagreement. It’s not normal to believe Trump is a pedophile, there is no evidence of that, and in fact there’s more evidence that Biden is (getting too close to young girls, showering with his daughter). It’s not normal to believe Trump is a rapist, there are no findings of any court convicting him of that. It’s not normal to believe Trump is a traitor, because if he could have been charged with treason they had four years to do it in.
Ethics Alarms 
I was unaware of these other assassination attempts on Truman and FDR. Great history lesson and I could not agree more with the analysis
TR was also shot in October 1912, when he was helping elect Woodrow Wilson to the presidency.
I was just reading about this assassination attempt — I had thought the bullet was stopped by the speech he had in his pocket, but it actually penetrated perhaps 3 inches into his chest. He insisted on making his speech whilst bleeding from the wound (the bloody shirt is an exhibit in his presidential museum).
Apparently the would be assassin was upset at TR’s running for a third term, thinking it a violation of presidential ‘norms’. That sound familiar?
But the copy of speech saved his life. And Teddy took it out, covered with blood and with holes in it. He stopped speaking a bit early, apologized, saying, “I have bullet in my chest.” Proof Teddy was nuts, but in the best way.
It’s not normal, but it’s everywhere. My city’s subreddit has a post titled, “All three local candidates running in the Democratic primary for a state House district have criminal histories.” (The article even mentions, “The sitting president was found guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records in 2024, the same year he was elected to his second term”.)
The top post says, “How can we pretend this still matters when the president has over 30 felonies??”
FTA: One candidate was arrested for a DUI. Her second. The first when she was a mayor for a city adjacent to Louisville. Another has been arrested for domestic violence and charged with first-degree strangulation and fourth-degree assault.
A jury found the third guilty of official misconduct in the first degree. She was a social worker at the state reformatory and got in trouble for having explicit phone conversations with an inmate (serial rapist). She lost her job. According to her, it’s because she intimidates white women. (TBF, she would intimidate me,
All have been convicted.
Citing the “34 counts of falsifying business records” is signature significance for bubble-dwelling and ignorance. Even among the tough field of lawfare garbage, that stands out as outrageous.
It’s shorthand for “we hate Trump and we think we have good reason to.” Anyone who looked at that trial with any level of detail knows it was rigged more than the upcoming parade of the tall ships in NYC.
I must wonder why Republican prosecutors have not started retaliatory prosecutions.
Did it never occur to them to fabricate capital murder charges against the opposition?
Re: the 34 felonies referenced. Why not use this tactic against illegal aliens. The first day of illegal entry is the civil violation and every day thereafter becomes a felony so all illegal aliens are considered people with multiple felonies
Why is there a 2nd amendment?
I should note that I am against political assassination with very few exceptions. Trump does not remotely qualify at the moment. Hitler did. Stalin did. Pol Pot did. Mussolini did not.
And the Allies did not want to work with the German Resistance in assassinating Hitler because they didn’t want to turn him into a martyr. The Nazis blamed traitors at home for their loss in the first war. If the Allies had supported the attempt, what was to stop another would-be tyrant from trying it again. The German people had to know they had lost the war entirely.
This is not to negate your argument, of course. Trump does not deserve to be killed.
The main historical reason is to allow the people of the USA to have means to protect themselves and the country against tyranny. Other people on this board (US citizens) can add more historical detail to it.
Assume that ordinary people in Iran had weapons. I do not think we would have the IRGC in power today as they would be toppled in a popular uprising.
The Turks set up the Armenians to be massacred by collecting weapons and even dangerous utensils like large kitchen knives. The second amendment means that can’t happen here. In the UK you can be thrown in jail if you forget and leave your utility knife in your jacket pocket when you leave your workbench. Again, that’s unlikely here.
Oh, btw, something I hadn’t put together until recently was that Henry VII outlawed military forces other than those belonging to the Crown at the end of the Wars of the Roses. A generation later his son Henry VIII purged nobles like St. Thomas More who were not inclined to acknowledge him as head of the new Church and stomped the monasteries. John Lackland specifically had to sign the Magna Carta almost 300 years before that because the nobles had the force to stand up to him. It also enshrined the right of rebellion against tyranny. Henry VII effectively made that right meaningless.
The Turks set up the Armenians to be massacred by collecting weapons and even dangerous utensils like large kitchen knives. The second amendment means that can’t happen here.
Since it is The Democrats that are “the enemy of the Republic” by definition, when does the moment arrive when men-of-resolve spring into action? If indeed The Democrats” are behind the various assassination attempts, then there is no doubt they are really and truly political enemies. If this is so, civil war is at the door (might be a poem).
“Civil war is at the door, the Republic that was is no more.”
But if this is looked at demographically, it changes the equation. The on-going war is one being waged against a fading power-structure of White America. The long, pale line of American Presidents suddenly got a bit of a smear. Then went White again. It is sort of blinking. Demographic static says that the next must be Latino or Latina. Hmmmm. I’ve got it! Maybe they need to run an American Indian. Who bakes bread from acorns on the back lawn. Who goes on Vision Quest in the hills behind Mt Rushmore? Maybe even take peyote?
“Henry VII outlawed military forces other than those belonging to the Crown at the end of the Wars of the Roses”
Maybe this sheds light at the “well-regulated militia” clause in the Second Amendment. During the Middle Ages and Renaissance armed opposition to the Crown required a well armed militia led by a military leader, which would (almost) always be a nobleman.
The magisterial church reformer John Calvin (1509–1564) generally opposed popular and chaotic revolution such as the peasant revolts in Germany. Instead he stressed the duty of obedience to civil magistrates based on Romans 13. However, he permitted armed resistance by “lesser magistrates” (such as nobles or representative officials) against tyrants who violate divine law.
The Dutch War of Independence (1568-1648) against the tyranny of King Philip II of Spain is a prime example of armed resistance following the ideas of John Calvin, as it was a battle for religious freedoms, and it was led by nobles such as William of Orange, who served at the court of Margaret of Parma in Brussels, and as stadhouder (governor) of Holland, Zeeland and Utrecht until 1567.
Prior to Napoleon we did not have a draft; all armies in Europe were basically mercenary armies, with soldiers owning their own weapons. So the assumption on which the Second Amendment rest is that citizens are allowed to have their own weapons.
Hmm, must read up on this.
There’s an EA post on that!
I did not hardly yawn at all and I read the whole post. Do you know what the color of each presidents socks? 🌺
Trump & Co. seem to be doing everything in their mortal power to destroy the possibility of the continuation of the so-called America Movement. And what, may I ask, has become of that wee adventure over there — what’s that place called? Oh darn, I forgot — that seems not to have turned out quite as the Dept. of Propaganda said it would. (Yes I know, that was last week).
I thought the petrodollar was importante to America’s material success? Oh ignorant me …
So, the United States is in a consequential battle “over there” and it should have been taken into consideration that assassination attempts by foreign agents was possible, but a man is able to check into a Washington hotel of category with shotgun and other weapons while the entire cabinet of the US government are all assembled together and fire shots!? What is one supposed to take away from this?
but a man is able to check into a Washington hotel of categorywith shotgun and other weapons while the entire cabinet of the US government are all assembled together and fire shots!? What is one supposed to take away from this?
What instead of one man, there had been 10 men who ran past?
Why does Trump keep saying he respects and appreciates the Secret Service? The Pennsylvania attempt seems to me completely inexcusable. So much so that it is inconceivable that it could have happened. And as I proposed even 5 men rushing into the room could have conceivably got to their mark.
Are these people simply stupid? (Also, maybe I am myself sexist against my own gender but the lady Secret Service agents just don’t look right.)
They’re going to have to name a salad now after the Salad Man who calmly nibbled while everyone hid under tables. Why didn’t he call out “Garçon, garçon!”
You can’t make this stuff up, as they say these days!
I don’t know no too much about presidential socks, but an interesting piece of presidential trivia is that James Monroe was the last president to wear knee breaches and a tricorn hat before that went out of style.
The only thing Allen did was take the Democratic party’s hatred to its logical conclusion – if this man is really that bad, and you can’t remove him from office by election, and impeachment isn’t possible right now and isn’t a sure thing later, then assassination is the logical next move. Why not?
I am wondering if it is sensible and correct to localize this extreme dislike of Trump (and both real policies and imagined policy results of those that surround him) in the Democrat Party. As if they direct a show and if they stopped, “it” would stop. Isn’t it more realistic to say that it is a Demographic Party that is deeply involved in a very deeply psychological animus that is directed against the ur-White man of the former America?
If my theory is correct, and since this bumbling, irresponsible, narcissistic idiot-man has taken utterly stupid actions that put EVERYTHING he ran on in danger, his subservience to the demand of his superior in Israel begins to look like the Spectacle of Suicide of Former America. What is that betting platform that is so popular now? Poly sonething-or-other?
It could have been handled so differently.
What is coming next, I wonder?
Watch your words, Alizia. You are treading close to anti-semitism.
“Oh well, allow me to retort!”
Since I was raised in a nearly Meir Kahane-style Sephardic Judaism, and because I left the community completely, and since it became necessary for me to understand the ideology of a later form of Judaic activism: Israelism, which is quite different from traditional Orthodoxy; and because I studied Catholicism and became Catholic thus finalizing the rebellion against Judaism; and because I bothered to read a great deal on the topic, and because I have studied the writing of both Diaspora Jewry and Israeli activists in our present who oppose Zionism for extremely good and well-articulated reasons, I can say that your comment to me is borne out of total ignorance.
You in fact, perhaps without understanding why, are supporting postures that encourage genuine Judenhass, not me. And yes I can explain. You simply do not understand the origins of Zionism. Zionism is itself anti-semitic because it attempts to completely undermine the religious side of Judaism. That is, the commandment to live in accord with the tenets of the Jewish religion. Zionism is essentially a European secular phenomenon of atheistic Jews with strong socialistic tendencies, who in various ways turned against Jewish history and in that sense ‘Jewish fate’. And there is also a very strong current within the Zionism movement that came from both Nazi-type ideology and a Christian-Zionist ideology that in some senses pre-dated Jewish Zionism.
It was all expressed and all understood within Jewish culture, within Jewry, that Zionism would not result in ‘good’ for Jews generally. I can cite a number of Jewish (more or less Orthodox) philosophers and religious who were totally opposed to Zionism as an option for Jewry. Judaism is not a national identity in the European nationalistic sense. That idea is Christian-European and that idea, expressed in Zionism and now Israelism, is not in any sense working out well as an historical option for Jewry. And many thousands of Jews are now leaving Israel, that is one fact, and many within Diaspora Jewry, who had been trained in Zionist ideology, are revising it. And if you had any genuine concern about the issue you could quote easily look into the matter and you would surely see.
It is now an UNQUESTIONABLE FACT that radical Israelis (liked to that Kahane-style Israeli nationalism and militancy) have inordinate influence over the government of the United States. Don’t take it from me, take it from concerned Jews who have done significant analysis. (Obviously, and just one, John Mearshiemer: “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy”).
This recent war, which looks to be the tañido fúnebre of America First and of MAGA, and perhaps even the presidency of Trump, and which is not turning out well and which is doing tangible harm, is understood to be an Israeli project. Again, do not take it from me. There are at least a dozen Jewish and Israeli theorists I can refer to.
Finally, and this is a much more difficult area, there is no doubt at all that there is now a rising mood that has come to the surface (I reference America here because Europe is different) not as a result of genuine anti-semitic sentiments and genuine Judenhass (a specific thing) but one that has a root in opposition to many of the results and effects of Zionism and Israelism within American culture. Specifically as a result of 30 years of war in the Middle East. You apparently have no idea about what is circulating. And as is typical of the Boomer mind-set, you shut your eyes and your ears. (There is one other aspect that I will not touch on her but I am aware of: It is traditional Catholicism’s view of its role in the world vis-a-vis the issue of Jewish opposition to Catholicism’s organization effort).
I do not shut my eyes and ears, though you may if you want, and your admonitions have zero effect on what I will think and how I will articulate my thoughts. And you will find this is true among many in the under-40 demographic.
https://philrockstroh.substack.com/p/what-do-we-anti-zionist-jews-talk
There is little doubt that the Overton window has shifted significantly on the concept of political normality. Democrats are pushing the extreme to one end, and Republicans are trying to somehow drag it back to where it was. He who has the initiative has the advantage, which is the Democrats.
We can bemoan this, or understand the opportunities and threats it creates. No matter how much we wish “muh norms” could be returned to some semblance of what the flabbergasted right considers reasonable, 1985 is not walking through that door.
Does that mean the Right should respond by attempting to assassinate the next Democratic president? Absolutely not, but the response cannot be “OMG that’s so wrong” all the time. It won’t work.
Calling it out may be the best we can do rhetorically, but practically, we need to consider a more focused response by conservative law enforcement. “True threats” are considered unprotected speech, and the Right needs to begin to push the boundaries of what those threats look like. Obviously, this implicates the First Amendment, but we cannot ignore the reality that the amplification of these threatening statements, as strongly suggested by this incident, is a national security problem. That implicates Job 1 of the Constitutional raison d’être for the federal government’s existence.
A rational approach is needed and the boundaries shouldn’t be stretched to crazy, but there is no real alternative to doing this other than outright violence. The American people are not indicating that they cannot tolerate the “new normal,” and until we reach that point, there will be no electoral consequences.
COTD on a COTD.
I think the proper phrasing on boundaries of speech is defining, not pushing, but I get the point.
It’ll take court cases and years, but so often no case is filed because it’s assumed it will fail based on events heretofore.
As you so well state, it’s not 1985 anymore, and we shall hope it’s not 1917, either.
It is not upon law enforcement to define what true threats are, as the ultimate arbiter on what is considered to be a true threat as one of the exceptions to the First Amendment is the Supreme Court.
There is too much rage rhetoric on the left. The only smart to to do is to let the steam escape the valves. Once you change (the interpretation of) the law to close those valves the real danger starts.
I do not want to see the USA turn into the UK, where angry posts on social media result in a visit from the police. In the UK about 300 people are arrested everyday for social media posts that are considered hateful. Should the USA really go into that direction?
CEES VAN BARNEVELDT wrote:
It is not upon law enforcement to define what true threats are, as the ultimate arbiter on what is considered to be a true threat as one of the exceptions to the First Amendment is the Supreme Court.
Exactly. But the only way for the Supreme Court to get it before them is for law enforcement and state or federal prosecutors to bring cases that will allow the boundaries of true threats to be established.
That is my point. I am not suggesting we try more censorship, that’s the Left’s position. I am saying that aggressive legal efforts to define the boundaries of what true threats are will, as the old saying goes, “concentrate the minds” of Leftists engaging in them and claiming the ambit of the First Amendment protects them.
I say let’s find out if the courts agree.
“But the only way for the Supreme Court to get it before them is for law enforcement and state or federal prosecutors to bring cases that will allow the boundaries of true threats to be established.”
That sounds nice in the abstract, however there always two outcomes with which you will have to live.
Outcome 1 is that SCOTUS rejects the view of the petitioners. Nothing changes, and the petitioners are made to look censorious and anti free speech. As an example see Jimmy Kimmel, who now emerges as free speech hero of the left.
Outcome 2 is that SCOTUS accepts the view of the petitioners, and narrows the boundaries of acceptable speech. Is that what we want?
It is mightily difficult to qualify certain speech as a true threat. Under Counterman v. Colorado (2023) SCOTUS ruled that the state must prove the speaker acted recklessly, understanding the threatening nature of their statement. Hereby a reasonable person must understand the statement as a threat instead of political hyperbole, satire, or ill-advised humor.
In the case of Cole Allen, his manifesto is neither a true threat or the ravings of a madman; it represents a coherent worldview shared by many people of the left including most Democrats in Congress.
Outcome 1, nothing changes from current; they’ll continue to paint “our side” as worse, when the opposite is true.
Outcome 2 does not narrow the bounds of acceptable speech, and it’s a red herring to phrase it that way. We’re not talking about whether or not burning the flag counts as the example.
What we hope it does is effectively prosecute threatening speech more often, or perhaps prosecute it when it used to be considered “borderline”. You can burn the flag, you just can’t set it on fire at the corner of the federal building.
I was listening to someone about the background of the assassin – prior to this event, he held a model resume as a citizen, somebody we’d all normally look up to. He was incentivized to commit murder precisely because he shared a worldview of all Democrats not named John Fetterman.
I think we’re fast approaching when most reasonable people see it for what it is – and at least a third of the population celebrates it.
I can live with option 1 or option 2.
When discussing speech, we already have boundaries because the Supreme Court has established them. What I am talking about is getting better definition on those boundaries, not expanding them beyond what they already are.
So yes, not only can I live with it, it is exactly what I want to happen, and it is not “narrowing” speech. For example, the court may well decide that none of the cases brought before them survive scrutiny. That is an outcome I can also live with.
Also, I disagree with your position that “It is mightily difficult to qualify certain speech as a true threat.” Speech is either a true threat or not — it is a binary classification. It can walk right up to the line but not step over it. Difficult or not, definitions in law are always problematic when they are too vague, and testing those definitions in court is the best way to sharpen them.
In the case of Cole Allen, his manifesto is neither a true threat or the ravings of a madman; it represents a coherent worldview shared by many people of the left including most Democrats in Congress.
Not a true threat? Have you read it? There is no universe in which laying out a plan to murder a group of people, whether attempted or not, is not a true threat. That is true under even the most permissive possible understanding of the term.
A more relevant question and perfect example of how this works is the recent indictment of James Comey for spelling out 8647 on the beach and then posting it on social media. My first blush take is that this, in context, is NOT a true threat and the charges should fail, and I fully expect to see a dismissal.
But I could be wrong. We will see.