Trump's alleged violent tendencies -- Arizona investigates Trump remark about shooting her.

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes said Friday that her office is investigating whether former President Donald Trump’s violent remarks about former GOP Rep. Liz Cheney broke the law.

“I have already asked my criminal division chief to start looking at that statement, analyzing it for whether it qualifies as a death threat under Arizona’s laws,” Mayes, a Democrat, said during a taping of “Sunday Square Off” on 12NEWS in Phoenix.

“I’m not prepared now to say whether it was or it wasn’t, but it is not helpful as we prepare for our election and as we try to make sure that we keep the peace at our polling places and in our state,” Mayes told the NBC affiliate.

 

[danieldemol]

Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes said Friday that her office is investigating whether former President Donald Trump’s violent remarks about former GOP Rep. Liz Cheney broke the law.

“I have already asked my criminal division chief to start looking at that statement, analyzing it for whether it qualifies as a death threat under Arizona’s laws,” Mayes, a Democrat, said during a taping of “Sunday Square Off” on 12NEWS in Phoenix.

“I’m not prepared now to say whether it was or it wasn’t, but it is not helpful as we prepare for our election and as we try to make sure that we keep the peace at our polling places and in our state,” Mayes told the NBC affiliate.

Please add the word "alleged" to your title before "violent tendencies".

I'm far from a Trump supporter but even he deserves this much solely as a human being in my view.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Please add the word "alleged" to your title before "violent tendencies".

I'm far from a Trump supporter but even he deserves this much solely as a human being in my view.

Done.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Please add the word "alleged" to your title before "violent tendencies".

Why? We've seen him encourage and condone it time after time. It well deserves to be called and bluntly stated what it is.

 

[danieldemol]

Why? We've seen him encourage and condone it time after time. It well deserves to be called and bluntly stated what it is.

It looks like a violent remark to me, but I believe it is for a court of law to determine that is what it legally is, and in the in my view unlikely event a jury and judge end up ruling that it isn't in accordance with the legal definition of violent speech it will save the OP from accusations of defamation by MAGA cultists.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes said Friday that her office is investigating whether former President Donald Trump’s violent remarks about former GOP Rep. Liz Cheney broke the law.

“I have already asked my criminal division chief to start looking at that statement, analyzing it for whether it qualifies as a death threat under Arizona’s laws,” Mayes, a Democrat, said during a taping of “Sunday Square Off” on 12NEWS in Phoenix.

“I’m not prepared now to say whether it was or it wasn’t, but it is not helpful as we prepare for our election and as we try to make sure that we keep the peace at our polling places and in our state,” Mayes told the NBC affiliate.

Lawfare bull****.

 

[danieldemol]

Lawfare bull****.

Here is what Trump has stated;
"“She’s a radical war hawk. Let’s put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her,” Trump said. “Okay, let’s see how she feels about it. You know when the guns are trained on her face — you know, they’re all war hawks when they’re sitting in Washington in a nice building,” Trump continued."

Source: Trump attacks Liz Cheney, says she wouldn't be a 'war hawk' if 'guns are trained on her face'

In my view if Trump had added the qualifier, *hypothetically if* she were put there with with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, it would have been understandable, but he said "Let’s put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her,” which sounds to me like a dangerous suggested course of action.

That being said I'm no legal expert so we will see what the courts think about if it was against the law.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Here is what Trump has stated;
"“She’s a radical war hawk. Let’s put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her,” Trump said. “Okay, let’s see how she feels about it. You know when the guns are trained on her face — you know, they’re all war hawks when they’re sitting in Washington in a nice building,” Trump continued."

Source: Trump attacks Liz Cheney, says she wouldn't be a 'war hawk' if 'guns are trained on her face'

In my view if Trump had added the qualifier, *hypothetically if* she were put there with with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, it would have been understandable, but he said "Let’s put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her,” which sounds to me like a dangerous suggested course of action.

That being said I'm no legal expert so we will see what the courts think about if it was against the law.

It's clearly a combat scenario Trump is just describing. it's an example of what she would do under pressure or feeling the pressure in such a situation. It is definitely not any kind of a death threat. It's laughable if anybody thinks it's one.

It's just another pathetic attempt by leftests at lawfare and arguably attacking free speech and everybody knows it.

 

[danieldemol]

It's clearly a combat scenario Trump is just describing. it's an example of what she would do under pressure or feeling the pressure in such a situation. It is definitely not any kind of a death threat. It's laughable if anybody thinks it's one.

It's just another pathetic attempt by leftests at lawfare and arguably attacking free speech and everybody knows it.

To me, "imagine her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her" would be an example of describing a combat scenario. Saying words to the effect of "Let's" do it is different to that in my view.

It was at the least careless and Trump could at least apologise for misspeaking as I see it.

 

[danieldemol]

This is how to use "let's" in a sentence from grammarly.com;

"Let’s is a contraction of “let us.” You use it to make suggestions about what you and someone else should do. Let’s go to the movies. Let’s invite Mom.

Source:
Let’s vs. Lets—What’s the Difference?.

 

[Twilight Hue]

To me, "imagine her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her" would be an example of describing a combat scenario. Saying words to the effect of "Let's" do it is different to that in my view.

It was at the least careless and Trump could at least apologise for misspeaking as I see it.

I agree that Trump would mince his words to where people can twist it around , i wish he wouldn't do that. But I don't think his core intent is actually homicidal to a level of being a full fleged psychopath. A sociopath perhaps, a megalomaniac definitely, but not a psychopath to a level where one would think Trump would run around putting out death threats and making kill lists like Stalin or Hitler or somebody.

 

[Estro Felino]

This is how to use "let's" in a sentence from grammarly.com;

"Let’s is a contraction of “let us.” You use it to make suggestions about what you and someone else should do. Let’s go to the movies. Let’s invite Mom.

Source:
Let’s vs. Lets—What’s the Difference?.

Excuse me, Daniel...but what they did is twist his words, which were very clear.

He said what I have always said: those who demand that thousands of soldiers die to fight this Crusade against the Czar should go to the front themselves to fight. It is very cozy to remain home and to send others to the front.

That's what Trump meant.

So this gaslighting from the media is annoying, honestly.

 

[Estro Felino]

I agree that Trump would mince his words to where people can twist it around , i wish he wouldn't do that. But I don't think his core intent is actually homicidal to a level of being a full fleged psychopath. A sociopath perhaps, a megalomaniac definitely, but not a psychopath to a level where one would think Trump would run around putting out death threats and making kill lists like Stalin or Hitler or somebody.

They are in profound bad faith. They do know what Trump meant.

So their gaslighting is some desperate attempt to divert the attention from the topic: that they are thirsty for war, and that if Trump had been president, there would have been no wars.

 

[danieldemol]

Excuse me, Daniel...but what they did is twist his words, which were very clear.

He said what I have always said: those who demand that thousands of soldiers die to fight this Crusade against the Czar should go to the front themselves to fight. It is very cozy to remain home and to send others to the front.

That's what Trump meant.

So this gaslighting from the media is annoying, honestly.

All the MSNBC article did was quote his words and the words of those who made allegations against him and those defending him in my view.

That is factual reporting as I see it.

Since English is your second language perhaps you do not know the meaning of "let's".

Here is a suggestion for you;
Let's get you to use the word "let's" correctly in a sentence?

 

[danieldemol]

He said what I have always said: those who demand that thousands of soldiers die to fight this Crusade against the Czar should go to the front themselves to fight.

Can you cite your source for Cheney making such a demand?

 

[Estro Felino]

All the MSNBC article did was quote his words and the words of those who made allegations against him and those defending him in my view.

That is factual reporting as I see it.

Since English is your second language perhaps you do not know the meaning of "let's".

Here is a suggestion for you;
Let's get you to use the word "let's" correctly in a sentence?

Of course I do.
In my language we use the exact same expression with the same verb. Imperative tense, first person, plural.


It's a purely hypothetical scenario.
He didn't mean "let's actually do it" at all, and I know it because we use the same expression in Italian.
It was something like: well, she wants others to risk their own lives in a war. Let's send her to war too...and we will see if she changes her mind about war.
I must have used this expression thousands of times on this forum.

Does that make me a violent person? No. It makes me a pacifist person. The violent ones are the warmongers thirsty for world war.

 

[Estro Felino]

Can you cite your source for Cheney making such a demand?

Plenty of them.
I would need hours.
Let's start with this: I mean, she wants Ukrainian soldiers to go on fighting....more weapons = more deaths.

Liz Cheney responds to Republicans opposing Ukraine aid

The former GOP representative praised those who supported the $60.8 billion package on Saturday.

www.newsweek.com

 

[danieldemol]

Plenty of them.
I would need hours.
Let's start with this: I mean, she wants Ukrainian soldiers to go on fighting....more weapons = more deaths.

Liz Cheney responds to Republicans opposing Ukraine aid

The former GOP representative praised those who supported the $60.8 billion package on Saturday.

www.newsweek.com

That is not a demand for soldiers to fight, it is supplying weapons to those who wish to fight in my view. I would suggest your comment was detached from reality.

 

[Estro Felino]

That is not a demand for soldiers to fight, it is supplying weapons to those who wish to fight in my view. I would suggest your comment was detached from reality.

There's nothing voluntary in Ukraine.
They are forced to fight, or they will be jailed for desertion.

So she is approving of Ukraine's decision to go on fighting. And I repeat it. It's very comfortable to remain home, sound and safe, and expect other soldiers to fight for a cause you believe in.
What are those Ukrainians? Sub-humans? Inferior? Disposable?

 

[danieldemol]

Of course I do.
In my language we use the exact same expression with the same verb. Imperative tense, first person, plural.

I believe you just hid your misunderstanding behind a big word.

Please define imperative tense with a citation.