(How is that for an iconic picture?)

As surely you know by now, someone attempted to assassinate Trump last night and did succeed in shooting him in the ear. We covered an eyewitness who said he saw the shooter setting up. He says he tried to warn the Secret Service and law enforcement, but he was ignored. And of course, we have much, much more coverage than that. Just keep scrolling.

However, Chaya Raichik, a.k.a. Libs of TikTok, is one of many people who is pointing out an uncomfortable fact tonight:

Biden said to “put Trump in a bullseye."

A few days later this happened. pic.twitter.com/Sd2cQzII0E

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) July 14, 2024

If you want verification, here you go:

Defiant Biden tells donors: 'We're done talking about the debate' https://t.co/O1sEK3oZB3

— POLITICO (@politico) July 8, 2024

From the article:

‘We need to move forward. Look, we have roughly 40 days til the convention, 120 days til the election. We can’t waste any more time being distracted,’ [President Joe] Biden said in a private call with donors Monday, according to a recording obtained by POLITICO.

‘I have one job, and that’s to beat Donald Trump. I’m absolutely certain I’m the best person to be able to do that. So, we’re done talking about the debate, it’s time to put Trump in a bullseye,’ Biden said.

Now, a reasonable person might say ‘Biden didn’t mean that literally. He was only talking about a figurative bullseye.’

Yes, but they were never that charitable to Sarah Palin:

I’m old enough to remember when the bullseye 🎯 map was used to blame Sarah Palin for the shooting of Rep Gabrielle Giffords https://t.co/2LSqpJ80XC

— Kara McKinney OANN (@Nefertari_25) July 13, 2024

I remember when Sarah Palin issuing flyers with pictures of Democrats with bullseyes on them was "A graphic call to violence."

Here's the President talking about putting his opponent in a bullseye.

No doubt the impartial media will treat this as a call to violence also - right? pic.twitter.com/8YbNPXjQaj

— Billy Swagspeare (@bswagspeare) July 13, 2024

Recommended

Advertisement

In fact, we purposely chose Ms. Raichik’s post on Twitter/X because she has been accused of ‘stochastic terrorism.’ The syllogism went something like this: 

1. Ms. Raichik reported (accurately) that people were doing bad things (or at least things that other people think is bad).

2. Other people learned about this and got upset.

3. Those other people either got violent (including violent threats).

4. Those people wouldn’t have done so, if they never heard about the bad things people were doing from Ms. Raichik.

5. Therefore, it’s Ms. Raichik’s fault that someone got violent.

Of course, we have said over and over again that by this author’s rules, Ms. Raichik is not responsible for someone else getting angry and violent due to her reporting.

But by ‘their rules,’ the rules of the left, everyone who has put down Trump is almost certainly responsible for this assassination attempt. Even more so if they used inflammatory rhetoric like, say, ‘it’s time to put Trump in a bullseye.’ Just this morning, Biden’s official Twitter/X account said that … 

Americans want a president, not a dictator.

— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) July 13, 2024

… and the obvious implication is that Trump will be a dictator if he wins in November. Jonathan Turley has been talking about this since Trump was shot:

...For months, politicians, the press and pundits have escalated reckless rhetoric, including claims that Trump was set to kill democracy, unleash “death squads” and make homosexuals and reporters “disappear.” President Biden has also stoked this rage rhetoric...

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) July 14, 2024

...When the president is claiming that the election may end democracy in the nation, it can be heard as much as a license as a warning. That is particularly true when he adds inflammatory lines such as “we’re done talking about the debate, it’s time to put Trump in a bullseye.”

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) July 14, 2024

Turley goes into much more detail in his article, but he mainly focuses on angry comments by people. What he ignores is that in some sense the legal jihad against Trump encouraged this conduct, too.

After all, let’s take a step back and ask ourselves: Why would it be wrong to assassinate Trump or Biden?

Obviously, the most basic concern is that it would be murder.

But when we are talking about political assassination in a democracy, there is an even bigger problem than just one person being murdered. Consider for instance John F. Kennedy. We have read that over 34 million Americans voted for Kennedy in 1960. But on November 22, 1963, one man decided to nullify all of those votes by killing him. That is profoundly undemocratic.

Likewise, in 1968, Robert F. Kennedy sought to nomination of the Democratic Party to be President of the United States. Maybe the voters would have embraced him, nominated him to be President, and maybe he would have even become the President of the United States. But we will never know because on June 5, 1968, someone decided to shoot him to death, nullifying the votes of everyone who voted for him in the primaries and nullifying the right to vote of every person who wanted to vote for him in the remaining primaries or in the general election. Again, that is profoundly undemocratic.

But it isn't the first time someone has tried to remove Trump from the election process, is it? As you might recall, four months ago, the U.S. Supreme Court stopped the Colorado Supreme Court’s attempt to remove Trump from the ballot. Just like the would-be assassin today, the Colorado Supreme Court didn’t think you had a right to vote for Trump. Just like the assassin of Robert F. Kennedy, Sr., the Colorado Supreme Court and the Trump's shooter tonight both tried to nullify the votes of every person who voted for this candidate in the primaries and the right to vote of every person who wanted to vote for him in the general election. And the most perverse thing about it is people were defending Colorado Supreme Court's illegal actions against Trump in the name of democracy—as though it wasn’t deeply undemocratic in and of itself.

And to a lesser extent the other lawfare that has been arrayed against Trump for months is also an attempt to hobble him in a way that throws the election to Biden. Many people believed that Trump shouldn’t even be allowed to be the Republican nominee after a jury voted to convict him, as though the votes of millions of Americans should be nullified by twelve. (And that is ignoring the serious problems with his trial.)

And how is this justified? The Babylon Bee might be satire, but they put their finger on it with this post:

Party That Called Trump 'Hitler' For 8 Years Shocked As Someone Tries To Assassinate Him https://t.co/9zTv1SsnMc pic.twitter.com/Wr5BNapizb

— The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) July 13, 2024

They have worked themselves up so much with ridiculous and overwrought claims that Trump is Hitler (among other evils), they think any action is justified in stopping him. And then they act shocked when 'any action' includes shooting Trump, for at least one Biden supporter.

By this author’s rules, none of that counts as incitement and the left’s peaceful but hateful rhetoric over the last eight years not responsible, morally or legally, for Trump being shot last night.

But by their rules, Trump’s blood and the blood of any bystanders harmed today is on their hands.