By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In a recent Truth Social post, former President Donald Trump criticized Seth Meyers, claiming that being “100% ANTI TRUMP” is “probably illegal.” Trump’s rant followed Meyers mocking the former president on “Late Night with Seth Meyers” for his comments on aircraft carrier catapults. Trump previously expressed similar sentiments in August regarding Meyer’s contract renewal with NBC, indicating a pattern of targeting the late-night host. The Independent reached out to NBC for comment, but received no response.
Read the original article here
President suggests being anti-Trump is ‘probably illegal’ in bizarre rant about Seth Meyers, and honestly, the whole thing feels like a descent into some kind of political theater, a darkly comedic play that’s both alarming and, let’s face it, a little bit ridiculous. It’s the kind of thing that makes you shake your head and wonder what the heck is going on in the world, and more specifically, in the mind of the person saying it.
The crux of the matter seems to be centered around Seth Meyers and his show, a focus of the President’s ire. You get the sense that a long-standing grudge, perhaps stemming from a roast at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner years ago, is bubbling to the surface. It’s almost as if the President is lashing out, not just at Meyers, but at the very idea of dissent, of criticism, of anyone daring to challenge his authority. And here, in a moment of seemingly unfiltered thought, the President suggests that being anti-Trump is “probably illegal”. The implications of such a statement are, of course, chilling. It’s a statement that, if taken seriously, would undermine the very foundations of free speech and open debate, cornerstones of any functioning democracy.
What’s particularly striking is the apparent conflation of personal dislike with the law. The comments seem to be suggesting that anything the President doesn’t like is somehow, by default, against the law. It’s as if the lines between personal feelings and the legal framework have blurred completely. It’s a dangerous idea, one that echoes with hints of authoritarianism. And the most ironic part is that, as some have pointed out, there was a time when the right to be critical of Obama or Biden was not only tolerated but celebrated. The tables have turned, and now, apparently, expressing views that are critical of this administration is, at least in the President’s mind, “probably illegal”.
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution seems to be in direct opposition to this claim. Freedom of speech is a fundamental right, and it certainly includes the freedom to criticize political figures. The very idea that expressing anti-Trump sentiments could be illegal is a direct assault on this right. The responses within the discussion were swift and pointed, expressing everything from disbelief and anger to calls to action. Many highlighted the potential for abuse of power, the risk of a “thought police” scenario, and the importance of defending free speech against those who would seek to suppress it.
The reactions also touch on the hypocrisy of the situation, especially given the history of the current administration. They raise the question of whether the same standards apply across the board. Is it only illegal to be anti-Trump? Are pro-Trump sentiments, for instance, perfectly acceptable, even if they involve spreading misinformation or inciting violence? The conversation delves into the legal definitions of things, questioning what is actually against the law versus what someone in power might *wish* was against the law. Some comments even suggested that those expressing support for the President should be considered in violation of the law for supporting actions like insurrection.
In a political climate where the definition of “truth” seems to be fluid, and where facts are often twisted or ignored to suit a narrative, this kind of rhetoric can be incredibly harmful. It’s the kind of rhetoric that can create a chilling effect, making people afraid to speak out, to express their opinions, or to participate in the democratic process. It also contributes to an environment where it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish between legitimate political debate and the erosion of fundamental rights. It highlights the dangers of unchecked power and the importance of safeguarding the freedoms we often take for granted.
Ultimately, this whole situation is a symptom of a much larger problem. It’s a symptom of a political environment that’s become increasingly polarized, where nuance and compromise are rare, and where the goal seems to be to demonize anyone who dares to disagree. It’s a reminder of the need to be vigilant, to defend our freedoms, and to call out those who would seek to undermine the very principles upon which our society is built. And that’s a thought that should concern everyone, regardless of their political affiliation.