The events at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner are straightforward.
A man armed with multiple weapons attempted to breach security at the Washington Hilton while the President of the United States and senior officials were inside. Shots were fired. Secret Service agents moved immediately, tackled the President, and evacuated him. Guests dove under tables as the suspect was subdued.
That is an assassination attempt. It is defined by the act itself. It does not depend on interpretation, speculation, or extended analysis.
Yet in the immediate aftermath, much of the public response avoided describing it that way.
One early account by the Washington Post characterized the incident as “loud noises” inside the ballroom, with attendees ducking for cover. Huh? Are their journalists not good enough to ask the question and find out if they are gunshots – an worldwide blockbuster news kind of assassination attempt rather than silly people reacting to a ‘noise’?
A bit later, former President Barack Obama emphasized uncertainty. “Although we don’t yet have the details about the motives behind last night’s shooting,” he wrote, while calling for a rejection of political violence and praising the Secret Service. Tough to recognize that Trump Derangement Syndrome has results in an attempt on Trump’s life, can’t admit that.
Numerous neutral, almost embarrassed statements came from Democrats, but the pattern is discernable. The Democrats do not want to be blame for creating the environment where this is not only possible, but happening over and over again. They might be willing to accept Trump as a martyr, but not while he is still alive. They want to blunt the inevitable focus on a President who has just been the target of an attempt on his life.
As coverage evolved, Democrats went to work reframing the situation. Rather than focusing narrowly on the attack itself, the incident was increasingly described as part of a broader pattern of political violence and gun-related incidents in the United States.
That shift created an opening for policy discussion.
During a CNN segment following the attack, Jamie Raskin was introduced in the context of a “rising tide” of political violence and the question of what could be done to stop it. The framing moved quickly from the specifics of the attacker and his intent to broader systemic concerns.
The shift to gun control messaging was immediate and explicit. College Democrats of America stated, “Today’s shooting during the White House Correspondents Dinner is yet another example of why common sense gun legislation is necessary.”
Robin Kelly followed with, “Gun violence is never acceptable — not at a park, home, school, or the White House Correspondents’ Dinner,” adding that “gun safety laws can save more lives across the country.” In both cases, the incident is used directly to argue for gun legislation. The connection is not implied, it is stated: this event is presented as evidence for expanding gun laws.
It does not stop, the hate and the businesslike political posturing are part of the Democrat machine from top to bottom.
NP Editor: Based on the data we have, we are now officially predicting at least 2 more assassination attempts and at least 4 attempts to impeach Trump in the next three years. None will be successful.
We also predict that the Democrats will get meaner and more radical, as Trump is successful in his endeavors to bring peace, fair trade, democracy and prosperity to the world.
