By John Q. Hosedrinker The statement, released by House Democratic leadership, unequivocally condemns Donald Trump’s “disgusting and dangerous death threats” against members of Congress, specifically referencing those who served the country with “tremendous patriotism.” The leadership points to Trump’s history of attacking those who have served the country, connecting his rhetoric to the January 6th Capitol attack. They have contacted the appropriate authorities to ensure the safety of the targeted members and their families. They call for Trump to remove the posts and retract his violent language.
Read the original article here
Joint Leadership Statement About Donald Trump’s Death Threats Against Democratic Members: The core issue here is a joint statement issued by House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Democratic Whip Katherine Clark, and Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar. Their message is clear: Political violence has no place in America. They directly address Donald Trump’s “disgusting and dangerous death threats” against specific members of Congress: Representatives Jason Crow, Chris Deluzio, Maggie Goodlander, and Chrissy Houlahan, as well as Senators Mark Kelly and Elissa Slotkin. The statement unequivocally condemns Trump’s actions and calls on House Republicans to do the same. This is the crux of the matter – a direct condemnation and a call for bipartisan support against threats of violence.
The statement doesn’t mince words about the context. It points out Trump’s history of inciting violence, referencing the January 6th attack on the Capitol. It highlights that his rhetoric is consistent with past attacks on prisoners of war, Gold Star families, and war heroes. The Democrats’ position is firm: there’s no limit to Trump’s behavior. They also emphasize they’ve contacted the House Sergeant at Arms and the United States Capitol Police to ensure the safety of the targeted members and their families. Their immediate demand is that Trump immediately delete his social media posts and retract his violent language before someone is harmed. The underlying concern is that if anyone else made these statements, they would likely face immediate legal consequences.
The subsequent reactions paint a picture of frustration and a perceived inadequacy of the response. Many feel that the statement, while condemning, is insufficient. The language is seen as “piss-weak” in light of the severity of the threat. The general sentiment is that a strongly worded letter is not enough, that there needs to be immediate action, perhaps even legal. There is an undercurrent of disbelief that the situation has escalated to this level.
The discussion also dives into deeper concerns, including the potential for “stochastic terrorism,” which is the use of public statements to incite violence. There’s a recognition that Trump’s words could be seen as a direct call for violence. Comparisons are drawn between what would happen if someone else made similar threats. The feeling is that Trump is seemingly operating above the law, with little consequence for his actions. The question of accountability is central: Why isn’t he being held accountable?
The oaths taken by members of the military are brought up as a crucial element. The focus is on the oath to the Constitution, not to any individual, and the right, even the obligation, of service members to refuse unlawful orders. This context makes Trump’s rhetoric particularly dangerous, as he is essentially threatening those who uphold their constitutional duties. The fear is that the military’s adherence to the constitution is being equated with treason by Trump, a dangerous and potentially inciteful rhetoric.
The overall tone is one of alarm and a sense that the situation is rapidly deteriorating. There is a strong feeling that the current response is inadequate and that more aggressive measures are needed. The implication is that this is not merely a political issue, but a genuine threat to the safety of members of Congress and, by extension, the stability of the country.
The call for impeachment is echoed throughout the responses. The general feeling is a sense of deep disappointment that Trump’s actions aren’t considered impeachable. Many feel that his behavior, including the threats against the members of Congress, should be grounds for his removal from office. The feeling is that the response is slow or perhaps even that there is resistance to act decisively.
There’s an acknowledgment that this isn’t just a political disagreement; it’s a threat to democracy itself. The reactions express a fear of escalating violence, even civil war, and a frustration with the lack of decisive action. The statement from the Democratic leaders, while a step, is perceived as insufficient, and the call for concrete action, including legal measures, becomes more strident.