Donald Trump should have called Thad Guyer before he tried to explain away the "Second Amendment" comment.
Advice to readers: When being investigated for doing something illegal or really stupid don't try to talk yourself out if the situation. Say you want to talk with a lawyer, then keep quiet.
Donald Trump was speaking casually and extemporaneously about how terrible it would be if Hillary appointed a couple of bad judges. He made reference to Jeffersonian first principles of revolution, to quote the Declaration of Independence, "that whenever any form of government is destructive to these ends [of good government by the consent of the people] it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and form new government."
As I wrote yesterday, he meant that someone (not him personally, and not that they actually should) just might use those Second Amendment rights and take arms against the tyrant president or the anti-gun judges. Then a hailstorm of criticism.
Guest post writer Thad Guyer says it was unfair criticism. There was a perfectly good explanation for Trump's statement. He came up with the response Trump should have used to explain away what he meant.
It is way better than Trump's own explanation. Trump tried to talk his way out of it. He started out by saying that he just meant that gun rights supporters had political power. Then Trump's people came up with a political doctrine that supposedly informed Trump's thinking, a doctrine of the "power of unification", which doctrine was unknown until it was voiced as explanation now: "Second Amendment people have amazing spirit and are tremendously unified, which gives them great political power. And this year, they will be voting in record numbers, and it won't be for Hillary Clinton, it will be for Donald Trump."
Having put unpersuasive explanations on the record it is hard to step back and say, "oh, what I meant to say was. . . . "
It is way better than Trump's own explanation. Trump tried to talk his way out of it. He started out by saying that he just meant that gun rights supporters had political power. Then Trump's people came up with a political doctrine that supposedly informed Trump's thinking, a doctrine of the "power of unification", which doctrine was unknown until it was voiced as explanation now: "Second Amendment people have amazing spirit and are tremendously unified, which gives them great political power. And this year, they will be voting in record numbers, and it won't be for Hillary Clinton, it will be for Donald Trump."
Having put unpersuasive explanations on the record it is hard to step back and say, "oh, what I meant to say was. . . . "
Lawyer Thad Guyer has an alternative explanation. Trump should have called his lawyer, or better yet Thad. Thad's argument shows nuance, understanding of the legislative process, respect of the Constitution. It would show off that Trump is capable of doing his homework and using complex reasoning, plus the explanation is very presidential.
There is one little problem with the explanation but Trump could explain it away and stick to Thad's script. Thad presumes that the gun rights supporting Senators will assure that no anti-gun judge is seated. But Trump's premise is that Hillary might be elected and one or two bad judges might need "Second Amendment solutions." But Trump would know what to do. Blame the media for intentionally misunderstanding him and then repeat Thad's explanation. Trump should read it through a few times so he gets the sense of it before he presents it as his idea, but a good lawyer would coach his witness, so I assume Trump would have been ready for prime time before taking this public.
If Trump had called Thad this is what he and his people would have said:
Guest Comment by Thad Guyer
Advice for Trump: Never Say “Nuclear Option”
Headlines like these are tough acts to follow: “Trump suborns Russian espionage in seeking Clinton’s deleted email!” “Psychologist suggests Trump is mentally ill! “Trump calls for Japan to get nuclear weapons!” And now “Trump incites assassination of Hillary Clinton!” They lack persuasive factual basis and fade quickly. Factually sound headlines have staying power, as the Clinton email scandal shows, so it never leaves the headlines.
The “Second Amendment people” as Trump calls them, consist of the NRA and its 5 million members, and its solid NRA-supporting Republican Senate and House. (See, “N.R.A. Victories in Congress Grow’, (NT Times, Jan. 16, 2016) http://goo.gl/3nSggn). Even if our hopes are realized with a Clinton win, the “Second Amendment people” will ensure that no openly anti-gun Supreme Court nominee will ever get confirmed in the Senate. Although it’s way more fun to take Trump’s words out of context, Time published a full transcript of Trump’s speech for those who want context. (See, Time, http://goo.gl/7kXYxq). Here’s the context:
“I guess it’s a scenario where this president could pick five Supreme Court Justices. *** Your Second Amendment, the National Rifle Association endorsed and they endorsed me early, a long time ago. And they’re great people, Wayne [LaPierre, NRA president] and Chris [Cox, NRA executive director] they are great people. *** If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is. *** Now, speaking to the NRA folks – who are great – when you – when you — and I’ll tell you, they endorsed me.”
If Clinton wins, Trump is right that she gets to pick her judges, but all would not be lost to Trump’s “Second Amendment people”. Trump was right to quickly question his dark assessment that there would be “nothing [they] can do”. Indeed, it would have been an insult to the NRA had Trump not then and there qualified his pessimism. If Clinton wins, and even if Democrats gain a majority in the Senate, the NRA and its people will not do nothing. The will do something about any judge she nominates who has a weak record on Second Amendment rights. There will be no “nuclear option” against the NRA in blocking gun-unfriendly nominees.
“The nuclear option” is a reference to the rule change in the Senate on November 21, 2013, when on a 52-48 vote, Democrats eliminated Republican abuse of the filibuster against the confirmation of Obama’s 59 executive branch nominees, and17 judicial nominees. (See, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option). Henceforth, judges would be confirmed on a simple majority vote. But exempted from that “nuclear option” are Supreme Court nominees, which continue to require 60 votes. The “Second Amendment people” will not be left with “nothing [they] can do”. They will insure that President Clinton never musters those 60 votes. And that is the message that the NRA expects Trump to honor. And that is the message he gave.
There is a “pari materia” rule in logic, forensics and law that holds the relevant context for a spoken or written passage is presumed to come from the same speech or text in which the passage is found. Yet, not a word in Trump’s speech referenced violence, assassination, or illegality. Why then would commentators and the media ignore the explicit NRA and Supreme Court context of Trumps words, even after he promptly explained them? Because it sells, just like “espionage” and “mental illness”. There are indeed “dog whistles” involved in this Trump assassination meme. But it was the media blowing them, not Trump. And it was eager never-Trump listeners hearing those whistles, not NRA members, and not “Second Amendment people. Those people heard the context Trump's words were made in. (See, “Gun Owners React To Donald Trump's 'Second Amendment People' Comments”, Aug 10, 2016 http://n.pr/2aH3ktH).
Note to Trump—never say the words “nuclear option”, or we can imagine the headlines.
Headlines like these are tough acts to follow: “Trump suborns Russian espionage in seeking Clinton’s deleted email!” “Psychologist suggests Trump is mentally ill! “Trump calls for Japan to get nuclear weapons!” And now “Trump incites assassination of Hillary Clinton!” They lack persuasive factual basis and fade quickly. Factually sound headlines have staying power, as the Clinton email scandal shows, so it never leaves the headlines.
The “Second Amendment people” as Trump calls them, consist of the NRA and its 5 million members, and its solid NRA-supporting Republican Senate and House. (See, “N.R.A. Victories in Congress Grow’, (NT Times, Jan. 16, 2016) http://goo.gl/3nSggn). Even if our hopes are realized with a Clinton win, the “Second Amendment people” will ensure that no openly anti-gun Supreme Court nominee will ever get confirmed in the Senate. Although it’s way more fun to take Trump’s words out of context, Time published a full transcript of Trump’s speech for those who want context. (See, Time, http://goo.gl/7kXYxq). Here’s the context:
“I guess it’s a scenario where this president could pick five Supreme Court Justices. *** Your Second Amendment, the National Rifle Association endorsed and they endorsed me early, a long time ago. And they’re great people, Wayne [LaPierre, NRA president] and Chris [Cox, NRA executive director] they are great people. *** If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is. *** Now, speaking to the NRA folks – who are great – when you – when you — and I’ll tell you, they endorsed me.”
If Clinton wins, Trump is right that she gets to pick her judges, but all would not be lost to Trump’s “Second Amendment people”. Trump was right to quickly question his dark assessment that there would be “nothing [they] can do”. Indeed, it would have been an insult to the NRA had Trump not then and there qualified his pessimism. If Clinton wins, and even if Democrats gain a majority in the Senate, the NRA and its people will not do nothing. The will do something about any judge she nominates who has a weak record on Second Amendment rights. There will be no “nuclear option” against the NRA in blocking gun-unfriendly nominees.
“The nuclear option” is a reference to the rule change in the Senate on November 21, 2013, when on a 52-48 vote, Democrats eliminated Republican abuse of the filibuster against the confirmation of Obama’s 59 executive branch nominees, and17 judicial nominees. (See, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option). Henceforth, judges would be confirmed on a simple majority vote. But exempted from that “nuclear option” are Supreme Court nominees, which continue to require 60 votes. The “Second Amendment people” will not be left with “nothing [they] can do”. They will insure that President Clinton never musters those 60 votes. And that is the message that the NRA expects Trump to honor. And that is the message he gave.
There is a “pari materia” rule in logic, forensics and law that holds the relevant context for a spoken or written passage is presumed to come from the same speech or text in which the passage is found. Yet, not a word in Trump’s speech referenced violence, assassination, or illegality. Why then would commentators and the media ignore the explicit NRA and Supreme Court context of Trumps words, even after he promptly explained them? Because it sells, just like “espionage” and “mental illness”. There are indeed “dog whistles” involved in this Trump assassination meme. But it was the media blowing them, not Trump. And it was eager never-Trump listeners hearing those whistles, not NRA members, and not “Second Amendment people. Those people heard the context Trump's words were made in. (See, “Gun Owners React To Donald Trump's 'Second Amendment People' Comments”, Aug 10, 2016 http://n.pr/2aH3ktH).
Note to Trump—never say the words “nuclear option”, or we can imagine the headlines.
1 comment:
The Facts Step In
It will be a loss if Democrats succumb to the unfortunate bulwark of the Republican party in disregarding facts in favor of political fiction. (See, “Inside the GOP’s hallucinatory dogma: How the politics of paranoia & disorientation conquered the Republican mind”, Salon, Oct 18, 2015). I understand the anxiety that never-Trump advocates are under in being able to point to nothing in his speech to support the “assassination” meme, and that the only “Second Amendment people” he named were two NRA leaders. When immediately interviewed on Fox News about this comments, Trump referenced both NRA leaders again by name, and said “this is a political movement, this is a strong powerful movement, this Second Amendment.” (YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pqdz7nMsWoU, starting at minute 11:10). If playing the lawyer card means dealing with facts, then deal me in.
Post a Comment