Reporter Debunks Liz Cheney, Sides With Trump On Latest Hoax
A reporter with the notoriously liberal media outlet Vox is calling on his mainstream media colleagues to wise up before they continue writing that President Donald Trump wished he could see former congresswoman Liz Cheney placed in front of a firing squad.
Trump on Thursday called Cheney a “radical war hawk” for her past support of the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, “something liberals said about her for ages,” Zack Beauchamp wrote on X. He went on, stating that it’s important for other journalists to judge the “context” of his remarks. “Trump is talking about giving her a weapon. Typically, people put in front of firing squads aren’t armed.”
During a rally in Glendale, Arizona, President Trump veered into open disdain for the anti-Trump Republican who helped lay the blame for J6 at his feet. “She’s a radical war hawk. Let’s put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, okay? Let’s see how she feels about it. You know, when the guns are trained on her face,” he told the crowd. “They’re all war hawks when they’re sitting in Washington in a nice building, saying, ‘Oh gee, let’s send 10,000 troops right in the mouth of the enemy.’”
Folks, Trump didn’t threaten to execute Liz Cheney. He actually was calling her a chickenhawk, something liberals said about her for ages.
Look at the context — Trump is talking about giving her a weapon. Typically, people put in front of firing squads aren’t armed. pic.twitter.com/AmKWkAVfur
— Zack Beauchamp (@zackbeauchamp) November 1, 2024
Beauchamp may have a point, judging from the rash of headlines suggesting Trump was once again encouraging violence against a political opponent. Politico reported that the Republican’s speech “reverts to violent rhetoric” while Reuters‘ headline blared “Trump suggests Liz Cheney should face firing squad for her foreign policy stance.” Cheney, who has capitalized on her anti-Trump credentials with book deals and campaign stops in support of Vice President Kamala Harris, leaned into the attack in a statement of her own. “This is how dictators destroy free nations. They threaten those who speak against them with death,” Cheney posted Friday on X. “We cannot entrust our country and our freedom to a petty, vindictive, cruel, unstable man who wants to be a tyrant.”
The Harris campaign piled on, saying Trump’s reference to “nine barrels” was describing a traditional firing squad. But to Beauchamp, all the outrage does a disservice to what he and other “defenders of democracy” view as Trump’s dangerous rhetoric. “Trump does so many offensive things, and makes so many anti-democratic promises, that it’s actually counterproductive to get outraged about fake ones,” he added to his post. “It is not ‘defending’ Trump to describe what he said accurately — it is basic intellectual honesty. Telling the truth is how we in the media retain our credibility, especially when we frequently (and rightfully!) criticize Trump.”
It is not “defending” Trump to describe what he said accurately — it is basic intellectual honesty.
Telling the truth is how we in the media retain our credibility, especially when we frequently (and rightfully!) criticize Trumphttps://t.co/TTDaYWRCy5
— Zack Beauchamp (@zackbeauchamp) November 1, 2024
President Trump’s comments about Cheney are among the last openings Harris and allies are seizing on in the campaign’s closing days. When a comedian at Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally referred to Puerto Rico as a “floating island of garbage,” Harris and allies used the joke to try and mobilize Puerto Rican swing state communities. Another recent comment by Trump stating he would protect women “whether they like it or not” was indicative that he “does not respect the freedom of women,” Harris told reporters on Thursday. For all the bluster, the Biden-Harris administration hasn’t gotten out of its own way. President Biden on Wednesday referred to MAGA supporters as “garbage,” and on Thursday the AP reported that White House press staff published an amended transcript of his statements over the objection of the head stenographer, a potential violation of federal law.
