Donald Trump, addressing supporters at a campaign event in Wilmington, North Carolina, this afternoon, suggested that if Hillary Clinton wins the presidency and people disagree with her Supreme Court nominees, well ...
You read that right. And yes, it seems he suggested that people use guns to make a point. It's not clear if he was suggesting that people take up arms against a Clinton administration, or against her nominees. In the most extreme view, you could interpret his comment---which followed a digression on the death of Antonin Scalia---as an incitement to violence against Clinton. That's how it appeared to many people.
X content
This content can also be viewed on the site it originates from.
X content
This content can also be viewed on the site it originates from.
X content
This content can also be viewed on the site it originates from.
X content
This content can also be viewed on the site it originates from.
X content
This content can also be viewed on the site it originates from.
So ... did the Republican presidential candidate just threaten the Democratic presidential candidate?
"That's actually a very interesting legal question," says Scott E. Sundby, a federal criminal law expert at University of Miami School of Law. That's because the law just changed. In 2015, the Supreme Court ruled in Elonis v. US that "any communication of a threat is something that the person who is communicating it would have to, on some level, realize would be understood as a threat," Sundby says. In other words: You gotta mean it.
Whether Trump's aside, with its sideways syntax, meets this criteria is tough to say. Could Trump claim, as he has after other outré statements (remember that baby?), that he was kidding? "You could read it as threatening Hillary Clinton or inciting others to do damage to her," says Leslie Kendrick, a constitutional lawyer at the University of Virginia. "The more opaque it is, the harder it is to establish that this is unprotected speech."
But Trumpian opacity could protect him from prosecution. "I'm sure his defense will be, 'Anyone would understand it as a joke and if they didn't that’s their problem not mine, because I meant it as a satirical comment,'" Sundby says. If Trump can plausibly claim that it never occurred to him that anyone would take him seriously, the comment is not a threat under federal law.
But oddly, that's not the tack Trump's campaign took. Within an hour of the statement, the campaign issued a clarification:
That's not the "I was joking" defense. That's the "not what I meant" defense. But it bears mentioning that Trump's rallies regularly draw supporters calling for violence against Clinton. As The New York Times reported last week, some who attend his rallies often shout "kill her!" Late last month, Trump's veteran affairs advisor Al Baldasaro told The Daily Beast that Clinton should be shot for treason.
Ordinarily the US Secret Service looks into things like this. US Law 18 code 879 grants the agency jurisdiction to protect national political candidates from threats. It reads:
The Secret Service declined to comment on how it might respond to Trump's comment. Though it did tweet this later in the day:
X content
This content can also be viewed on the site it originates from.
Here is his full quote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhPvuzqSSHE