Trump answers the charge of whether he’d use the military to move against his opponents
In her Fox News interview with Bret Baier, Harris said this about Trump:
You and I both know that he has talked about turning the American military on the American people. He has talked about going after people who are engaged in peaceful protest. He has talked about locking people up because they disagree with him,” Harris told the Fox News host.
“This is a democracy, and in a democracy the president of the United States in the United States of America, should be willing to be able to handle criticism without saying he’d lock people up for doing it,” she said.
If you would like to read what Trump actually said rather than Harris’ spin on it, see this. I think it’s quite clear – although he could and should have made it more clear – that he’s talking about violent, disruptive, far left demonstrators, and mostly about calling on the National Guard if necessary to maintain order. There’s nothing really new or different about that, although many people on the NY Times staff got all upset when Tom Cotton mentioned something similar a while back.
For example, here’s one of Trump’s previous statements on the matter:
On Oct. 13, during an interview with Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo, Trump was asked if he is expecting chaos on Election Day. The former president said he was not anticipating mayhem from “the side that votes for Trump” but from what he called “the enemy from within.”
“I think the bigger problem is the enemy from within, not even the people that have come in and [are destroying] our country — I don’t think they’re the problem in terms of Election Day — I think the bigger problem are the people from within,” Trump said.
“We have some very bad people; we have some sick people, radical left lunatics. And it should be very easily handled, if necessary, by the National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military, because they can’t let that happen,” Trump added.
Here’s more recent clarification from Trump, from a WSJ interview:
Columnist Peggy Noonan, a longtime and sometimes severe critic of Mr. Trump, asks him to clarify [comments he made in an interview with Maria Bartiromo televised this past Sunday]: “If you were to reach the presidency again, would you of course rule out using the military to move against your enemies? That is, yours would not be a fascist-style government that would use its agencies, entities or military to move against your political foes because they have opposed you—is that correct?”
“Yeah,” Mr. Trump says, “but I never said I would. . . . First of all, Biden, who doesn’t know he is alive—Biden said that he expects there to be a lot of trouble if I win the election. That’s a very bad statement for him to make. He said that. That’s where this came from.” Mr. Trump digresses into his poll numbers and has to be brought back on topic.
Ms. Noonan: “But you would never do that?”
Mr. Trump: “Of course I wouldn’t. But now, if you’re talking about you’re going to have riots on the street, you would certainly bring the National Guard in. As an example, in Minneapolis while I was there”—meaning while he was in office—“they had riots, literal riots. That whole city was burning down. And Minnesota, the governor was supposed to—our favorite governor—the governor was supposed to do it. He wouldn’t do it. He wouldn’t do it. And I said, ‘You got to get the National Guard.’ . . .
“And when you looked over the shoulder of that poor guy from CNN, that poor, stupid reporter who was standing there saying, ‘This seems to be a peaceful demonstration,’ then he gets hit on the leg with a rock, and behind him the whole city was burning. It looked like World War II in Berlin, and he’s trying to say that it’s peaceful. So I insisted that the National Guard—if I didn’t do that, I don’t think you would’ve had a city left. So I’m only talking about in cases like that where you need help. You can’t say, ‘I’ll never bring in everything,’ as the entire country is disappearing in bedlam. But certainly not against my opponents—it’s against civil unrest.”
But Harris would much rather imply that Trump will have some sort of policy of using the military to shoot his enemies and “the American people,” as well as locking up people who merely “disagree with him.” No, that last bit is solely the province of the party to which Harris belongs.
All part and parcel of ginning up even more TDS.
Trump answers the charge of whether he’d use the military to move against his opponents.
1. The Demos do not want the National Guard, let alone the Army, to put down rioters.
2. Demos prefer letting rioters riot. Which is what Governor Walz did in Minneapolis during the Sainted George Floyd riots in 2020.
That is, Demos prefer rioting and burning down cities to maintaining order.
physicsguy (5:14 pm) and Gringo (5:48 pm), both points are plain as day.
Yes, but aren’t they building a case that in case of a Trump victory, extraordinary measures would be justified to protect the American citizenry? I put this together with all of the “bi-partisan” proclamations of Trump’s danger by 751 or whatever senior poobahs as a strategy to legitimize any putsch as a defensive measure to “protect” rather than overthrow the republic.
Paranoid, but you can’t underestimate these people.
Yes, but aren’t they building a case that in case of a Trump victory, extraordinary measures would be justified to protect the American citizenry? …as a strategy to legitimize any putsch as a defensive measure to “protect” rather than overthrow the republic.
NancyB:
Quite. I worry about this too. I did catch a Fox clip of a Democrat making what sounded like a veiled threat to this effect in the event of a Trump victory.
Shoulda bookmarked the link.
As usual, a good way to understand what Democrats are up to is by noticing what they accuse Trump of — using the power of the military to outlaw political dissent, to imprison opponents and to turn the presidency into a dictatorship.
Nancy
Astute prediction: Any attempt to quell rioting will be labeled as you suggest. Using the military against the American people. Prepping the battle space.
neo:
I appreciate your hard work dismantling Democrat Facts That Aren’t True.
Sad, how easy it is to tell a lie, and how much harder it is refute it and understand the refutation.
@ huxley – totally agree with you on both points.
Neo really puts the work in to unravel the sound-bites, gotcha questions, reaction reversals (such as Republicans Pounce to change the focus from the actual events), and outright lies of our politicians and pundits.
The difficulty of refuting DemoLeft lies is that they don’t ever concede the point and move on (heh), they just trot out the old canard again and again and again.
I think it was abundantly clear DJT was talking about releasing the full weight of the military… against the ballet and it’s supporters. A move I wholeheartedly support in order to save democracy.
The riots will take place in blue states or blue cities. The governors of those states have the authority to use their state’s National Guard forces to quell those riots. I think the mayors of cities can request their governor to do so. At this point in history, I see no reason why Trump, as President, should federalize any state’s National Guard, unless requested by that state. As to “getting even” with his adversaries, I expect he would name an Attorney General (Cotton? Cruz?) who would vigorously pursue those cases, where possible in a jurisdiction other than Washington, DC.
Hoo Boy….
Is it True…?
Is it Possible…?
Or is it Memorex….?
“Tectonic Political shift Afoot As Minorities Go Normie, Turning Away From Increasingly Woke, Left-Wing Democratic Party”—
https://blazingcatfur.ca/2024/10/19/tectonic-political-shift-afoot-as-minorities-go-normie-turning-away-from-increasingly-woke-left-wing-democratic-party/
Guess we’ll have to wait and see.
(AKA can “Biden” put over half the country essentially in lockdown?)
If DJT is elected, I expect violent protests. They will certainly occur in blue cities and will be treated with kid gloves by the mayors. They will be well-organized and financed, just as the Floyd riots were.
The MSM will treat them as if they are grass roots efforts showing just how many people cannot stand the idea of another Trump term. And, of course, Biden and Harris will pour gas on the flames until inauguration day. The inauguration may actually need to be done with the National Guard clamping down on D.C.
I expect that everything Trump tries to do to close the border and deport illegals will be met with lawfare – just as hie border wall was – and possibly violent protests. I expect the worst from these forces (Soros/Obama/Silicon Valley billionaires/Hollywood/etc.) that are working intensely to transform the United States of America.
IMO, and I hope I’m wrong, if Trump is elected, his four years will be spent in simply trying to establish the rule of law nationwide. If he can do that, it will be a huge victory for citizens all over the country.
I’m not normally a pessimist, but the last eight years have opened my eyes to things I never thought could happen.
JJ… you’re probably closer to being a prophet than you would like.
The great amount of damage that can be done between election and inauguration is mind-blowing…& I reckon we’ll see it. Especially since Joe is only nominally in charge and the cabal of Pelosi, Schumer, and Harris(Obama) will do whatever possible to disrupt Trump 2.0
I also wouldn’t put it past Trump’s opponent(s) to try to not certify the results. So… we’ll see.
And if there are any FBI or other groups of instigators and infiltrators now preparing for the crowds that might collect on 1/6/25, to cause violence to erupt when otherwise it would have remained dormant. Regardless of whomever is “elected” and “certified”.
I will repeat” It’s a long way from winning an election and being ‘in’ office.”
All the reasons cited above make control of the Congress critical.
Love the new statement by “entertainer” “Lizzo” at the latest Harris rally in Detroit that, if Harris wins, “the whole country will be “like (her hometown of) Detroit.” *
* See https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/10/degenerates-this-is-how-bad-btch-saves-democracy/
This follows “Tampon Tim” Walz’ recent imitation of crack hunter–just bought outfit included–Elmer Fudd.*
I wouldn’t want to be anywhere near this inept putz, as he waves his shotgun around, trying to load it.
* See https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/oct/14/tim-walz-minnesota-governor-faces-ridicule-on-soci/
Shame on Noonan. Trump should have stopped her right there and said “why are you asking me a ‘when did you stop beating your wife ‘ question?”
Of course the leftist establishment media would spin that as :Trump admits he beats Melania.”
Who thinks the Jan 6 “insurrection” was aided and abetted by the deep state. Essentially a “Reichstag” ploy and the congressional committee investigation was merely a phony-baloney show trial to “prove” Jan 6 was in fact an insurrection , but really aimed at destroying Trump??
Not that long ago I never would have even considered asking a question like this.
I would have labelled it as the idiotic utterance of some wacko, far right, nut job with no brains.
But these days, I am not sure what to think about the Federal Govt.
Any thoughts anyone?
Noonan is exceedingly dim, I guess thats why the journal keeps her on staff, also she won a pulitzer in 2017, for actually noticing reality and that of trump supporters, but since then she has ventured into fantasy land, she’s not as bad as Kathryn Parker, heaven forbid, but bad enough as it is,
the incursion as Greg Kelley and Tucker Carlson one of the few who have really investigated the matter, was about stopping the objections, thats why they modified the Electoral Count Act, so it is very hard to challenge anything that is
unmistakable fraud,
while everyone else seems to dance around the issues like a tarantella,
trying to make much of it, when it was not a very provocative act,
Conversely, the previous set of riots, were about
demoralizing the police and any resistance against the wave of criminality they unleashed upon the country, enabled by Harris and Waltz at the local level,
but the pretext is still taken at face value, even if minimized the vast network of international and domestic militants is nearly dismissed,
James A. Rhodes was right!