Donald Trump has narrowly dodged another bullet after an apparent second assassination attempt outside his Florida golf course. The Standard has this report:
There were shots fired outside the course, law enforcement sources said. Trump’s campaign had earlier said he was safe following gunshots in his vicinity but gave no details.
U.S. Secret Service agents opened fire after seeing a person with a firearm near the golf club as the former President golfed, according to local media reports.
The person fled in an SUV and was later apprehended in a nearby county by local police.
An AK-style firearm was recovered at the scene near Trump’s golf course, according to reports.
The golf course was partially shut down for Trump as he played.
The suspect appeared to push the muzzle of the rifle through the fence line when agents fired, unnamed law enforcement officials told U.S. media.
A police official said officials were trying to determine whether the shots were fired near Trump’s West Palm Beach golf course or on the grounds.
A witness, Max Egusquiza, said: “From what I saw five black unmarked SUVs blocked in a grey Mercedes in front of the golf course. There were about 20 or more cop cars flying from nearby streets.”
Newsweek carries more details on the would-be Trump assassin:
The suspect was identified as Ryan Wesley Routh, aged 58, officials told the Associated Press.
CNN Chief Law Enforcement and Intelligence Analyst John Miller reported Sunday afternoon that Routh’s social media accounts have focused on his “self-proclaimed involvement” in the war in Ukraine, including his supposed effort to recruit soldiers to fight in the conflict. Routh also claimed to have fought in Ukraine as it continues to hold off Russia’s invasion.
Miller said that Routh has been living in Hawaii and was formerly a construction worker in North Carolina. The suspect has also reportedly been previously arrested eight times, mostly for minor offenses.
Routh appears to have previously spoken with the New York Times about his effort to recruit Afghan soldiers who fled the Taliban to fight in Ukraine. At the time of the report, which was published on March 25th, 2023, Routh told the Times that he had spent several months in Ukraine in 2022.
A Semafor report published on March 10th, 2023, cited Routh as the head of the International Volunteer Center (IVC) in Ukraine, a private organisation that works to “empower volunteers” and other non-profit groups that work to “enhance the distribution of humanitarian aid throughout Ukraine”, according to the IVC’s website.
In a June 2022 interview with Newsweek Romania, Routh spoke about his efforts to recruit volunteers for the International Legion Defense of Ukraine, a unit of Ukraine’s Ground Forces.
“The question as far as why I’m here – to me, a lot of the other conflicts are grey, but this conflict is definitely black and white,” Routh said. “This is about good versus evil. This is a storybook, you know, any movie we’ve ever watched, this is definitely evil against good.”
The Associated Press previously reported that Routh was convicted in 2002 of possessing a weapon of mass destruction, per online North Carolina Department of Adult Correction records, but could not provide details about the case.
A December 2002 story by News & Record in Greensboro, North Carolina, said that a man with the same name was arrested after a three-hour standoff with police.
Routh was reportedly charged with carrying a concealed weapon and possessing a weapon of mass destruction, “referring to a fully automatic machine gun”.
Trump has been vocal about his scepticism of providing military arms to Ukraine, inspiring his party to block essential military funding to the country for months earlier this year.
The Guardian has gathered reactions from family and political figures across the political spectrum about the incident:
The White House said Joe Biden and Kamala Harris had been briefed on the incident. “They are relieved to know that he is safe. They will be kept regularly updated by their team,” a statement read.
The Vice-President said in her own statement on X: “I have been briefed on reports of gunshots fired near former President Trump and his property in Florida, and I am glad he is safe. Violence has no place in America.”
Trump’s family also reacted.
“My father is running out of lives here,” son Eric Trump told Fox News’s Sean Hannity. “How many more rifles are going to come within assassination distance of my father?”
In an email to supporters, Trump said: “There were gunshots in my vicinity, but before rumours start spiralling out of control, I wanted you to hear this first: I AM SAFE AND WELL!”
“Nothing will slow me down. I will NEVER SURRENDER!” the former President added.
In an X post, the South Carolina Republican senator Lindsey Graham, one of Trump’s top congressional allies, said he had spoken with the former President after the incident and that Trump was in “good spirits” and was “one of the strongest people I’ve ever known”. …
Trump’s running mate, Ohio senator J.D. Vance, said in a statement: “I’m glad President Trump is safe. I spoke to him before the news was public and he was, amazingly, in good spirits. Still much we don’t know, but I’ll be hugging my kids extra tight tonight and saying a prayer of gratitude.”
Stop Press: AP has the full news conference with local law enforcement and the FBI discussing the latest attempt on the life of former President Donald Trump.
Stop Press 2: The Mail has more on Trump’s would-be assassin.
You’ll need to set up an account to comment if you don’t already have one. We ask for a minimum donation of £5 if you'd like to make a comment or post in our Forums.
My starting point and probably finishing point would be that nothing should be done about “misinformation” of any kind, same goes for “fake news”, “hate speech” etc. Limit restrictions to libel, slander and anything criminal e.g. direct incitement to commit a specific crime, threats etc. And I suppose do something about porn and extreme violence.
If only porn and extreme violence is allowed to be censored, everything some backroom entity disapproves of will become porn or extreme violence. The procedure of someone being an anonymous judge & jury whose decisions need no justifications, who won’t allow the judged to state their view of the situation and against whose decisions no redress is possible is fundamentally broken. Tweaking the set of conditions enabling such an entity to spring into action won’t help.
Yes, I would not advocate censoring them per se, but maybe consider warnings or safe search features or something on sites that were intended for family consumption, though I tend to think in general that adults should be able to look at whatever they feel like and parents can police their kids consumption of the internet, TV, books, whatever.
For this to work sensibly, it needs to be implemented on the consumer and not on the producer side because the information to do the latter is simply not available. Ideally, platform providers would tag content suitably and cooperating clients would then refuse to display it if configured to do so. That’s obviously not bulletproof, but nothing is. Such a system is still open to abuse, the example would be certain UK ISPs classifying TCW as adult content. But at least, it’s not abuse-by-design.
Indeed. Given how important free speech is I would err on the side of people seeing content they shouldn’t rather than people being prevented from seeing stuff. And the cases of people seeing content they shouldn’t are in my mind limited to keeping kids away from porn and extreme violence and the like.
Dr G
2 years ago
Like a fox asking for suggestions on running the henhouse.
I never have, nor ever will have any involvement with Twitter, Facebook, et al. Easy.
You have no involvement, but almost everyone else does.
I have no debt, but my customers do.
I keep enough time between my vehicle and the vehicle in front, but when they all pile into each other, I am caught up in it, and can’t move backwards or forwards.
The actions and ideas of the masses affect us all. The ideas of individual responsibility and personal freedom are the way out of this and need constant reinforcement. This task always falls to the little guys, because the big guys have no interest in your personal freedom.
The mission of the Facebook Oversight Board is to ensure that Facebook content moderators don’t accidentally stray into the territory of insufficient wokeness, ie, it’s a last resort for complaints about content which wasn’t censored. Other cases won’t be handled by it, no matter how flagrantly a moderator decision violated stated Facebook policy. That’s presumably based on the theory that excessive censorship cannot do harm, only too lenient one.
What a terrific response, but then again you might expect the founder of something called the Free Speech Union to be able to articulate a good argument for free speech.
I’m not sure Facebook will pay much attention to it, but it certainly inspired me.
It is starting to dawn on social media companies that the onus of responsibility is about to be kicked into their court as regards to content moderation due to the demands of the impossibly complex Online Safety Bill. Having very little idea about how to go about implementing these confusing regulations (identifying the unidentifiable vulnerable individuals likely to be harmed by unidentifiable harmful information), it looks like they’ve come up empty-handed and resorted to asking the general public for advice on this!
My blunt recommendation would be to go with the principle of Occam’s Razor and simply allow people to talk bollocks on facebook and twitter. Perhaps we should be taking social media posts a little less seriously – most of what gets discussed on these platforms comes under this category anyway. It’s clear, as Toby points out here, that it’s mainly the right-of-centre views and and the holders of these views that are targeted for demolition. If it’s mostly nonsense, as I firmly believe most social media posts are (I would describe many as the culmination of anger, alcohol consumption, and virtue-signalling bigotry), then what we currently see is certain types of nonsense being tolerated at the expense of other types of nonsense.
I don’t know how these content-moderating algorithms sleep at night!
Hip hip hooray, Toby! Great letter. And the right strategy, to refuse to answer their facile questions.
Geoff Cox
2 years ago
Well said Toby. But perhaps the best lines for us to take away from this is right at the beginning:
“I’m not going to respond to the questions directly. The way they’ve been drafted, it’s as if Meta is taking it for granted that some suppression of health misinformation is desirable during a pandemic – because of the risk it might cause “imminent physical harm” – and what you’re looking for is feedback on how censorious you ought to be and at what point in the course of a pandemic like the one we’ve just been through you should ease back on the rules a little.”
Good point. We all have to be very careful answering surveys because they are all open to misinterpretation. For example (say):
Do you agree strongly, agree somewhat, don’t have a view, disagree somewhat or disagree strongly with the following sentence: “there is some content on social media sites that should be censored?”
Most normal people would answer that “agree somewhat” or “agree strongly” because there are some sites that should be censored (eg snuff movies). But the next thing you know the authors of the survey are claiming “95% of respondents said there should be some censorship of social media”. The trouble for us is that if we don’t respond then the survey results are even worse.
I disagree with the implied statement that existing practices in this area would be basically ok and just needs some tweaking, ie, It’s generally fine provided I get to decide what should be deleted. There are legal procedures for dealling with so-called illegal content and these exist for a reason (basically, humans are partisan and fallible).
I would like to see what Farcebook has to say about the comments regarding the vaccines Steve Kirsch is getting from medics in the USA who are beginning to speak out, albeit anonymously at the moment. Here is his summary…
1. They are afraid to come out publicly due to intimidation tactics such as loss of job and/or license to practice medicine.
2. Unvaccinated healthcare workers are extremely upset with the medical community. They feel they have been treated unfairly.
3. It is the vaccinated workers who are getting sick with COVID, but it is the unvaccinated who are punished with constant testing, restrictions, and threats of losing their jobs.
4. The COVID shots are a disaster. Even for the elderly which is supposed to be the most compelling use case, death rates in elderly homes went up by a factor of 5 after the shots rolled out. Each time the shots are given, the deaths spike. Nobody is talking publicly about this. It’s not allowed.
5. Doctors are seeing rates of injury and death increase dramatically in all ages of people. The injuries are only happening to the vaccinated. There is no doubt that this is happening but many doctors have so much cognitive dissonance that they don’t see it.
6. One nurse with 23 years of experience says she’s never heard of anyone under 20 dying from cardiac issues until the vaccines rolled out. Now she knows of around 30 stories.
7. Doctors aren’t recording vaccination status in the medical records so that all the deaths are attributed to the unvaccinated.
8. Doctors are deliberately ignoring the possibility that the vaccines could be the cause of all the elevated events. The events are simply all unexplained.
9. Many doctors have either quit or will quit.
10. Some doctors and nurses at top institutions such as Mass General Hospital have falsified vaccine cards. They publicly toe the line and encourage their patients to take the shot knowing full well it is deadly. They value their job more than the lives of their patients. The important thing is they are risking 10 years in jail for doing this. These highly respected medical workers are telling the world that these COVID shots are so dangerous that they are willing to risk 10 years in prison to avoid taking the shot. That’s the message America needs to hear. And if Biden were an honest President, he would call for full amnesty and protection from retaliation for all these cases if people admitted publicly they did this. He’d be amazed at the number of responses he’d get. But he won’t do that because it would be too embarrassing for his administration.
11. Things don’t seem to be getting any better.
12. The medical examiners all over the world are not doing the property tests during an autopsy to detect a vaccine-related death. Without doing the required tests, it is very hard to make an association. There isn’t a single “guidance” document from any medical authority anywhere in the world to do these tests on people who die within 3 months of their last COVID vaccination. This is why no associations are found: they aren’t looking.
13. Doctors are being forced to take other vaccines (such as the HIV vaccine) so the hospital can meet their quota. This was admitted to them.
I would love to know how they could label this ‘misinformation’.
RDG
2 years ago
Yea its a good response but I find the certainty expressed regards the election misplaced.
I’ve read Rules for Radicals relatively recently, published in 1971, and on page 108 it covers a Democrat politician from Chicago becoming very angry with Alinsky because he ‘doesn’t even bother to vote more than once’.
I have absolutely no evidence for any shenanigans on the day, besides the minor stuff and Maggie Hemingway’s book Rigged, but would I be certain they didn’t do anything?
Absolutely not.
There is motive and past form.
marebobowl
2 years ago
No offence, but Facebook is toxic. Why would any intelligent person use Facebook. I cannot understand it. I also cannot understand why any intelligent person would support a platform which suppresses and censors free speech. That is outright dangerous.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
My starting point and probably finishing point would be that nothing should be done about “misinformation” of any kind, same goes for “fake news”, “hate speech” etc. Limit restrictions to libel, slander and anything criminal e.g. direct incitement to commit a specific crime, threats etc. And I suppose do something about porn and extreme violence.
If only porn and extreme violence is allowed to be censored, everything some backroom entity disapproves of will become porn or extreme violence. The procedure of someone being an anonymous judge & jury whose decisions need no justifications, who won’t allow the judged to state their view of the situation and against whose decisions no redress is possible is fundamentally broken. Tweaking the set of conditions enabling such an entity to spring into action won’t help.
Yes, I would not advocate censoring them per se, but maybe consider warnings or safe search features or something on sites that were intended for family consumption, though I tend to think in general that adults should be able to look at whatever they feel like and parents can police their kids consumption of the internet, TV, books, whatever.
For this to work sensibly, it needs to be implemented on the consumer and not on the producer side because the information to do the latter is simply not available. Ideally, platform providers would tag content suitably and cooperating clients would then refuse to display it if configured to do so. That’s obviously not bulletproof, but nothing is. Such a system is still open to abuse, the example would be certain UK ISPs classifying TCW as adult content. But at least, it’s not abuse-by-design.
Indeed. Given how important free speech is I would err on the side of people seeing content they shouldn’t rather than people being prevented from seeing stuff. And the cases of people seeing content they shouldn’t are in my mind limited to keeping kids away from porn and extreme violence and the like.
Like a fox asking for suggestions on running the henhouse.
I never have, nor ever will have any involvement with Twitter, Facebook, et al. Easy.
You have no involvement, but almost everyone else does.
I have no debt, but my customers do.
I keep enough time between my vehicle and the vehicle in front, but when they all pile into each other, I am caught up in it, and can’t move backwards or forwards.
The actions and ideas of the masses affect us all. The ideas of individual responsibility and personal freedom are the way out of this and need constant reinforcement. This task always falls to the little guys, because the big guys have no interest in your personal freedom.
PS this is not an advert for socialism. Defo not.
The mission of the Facebook Oversight Board is to ensure that Facebook content moderators don’t accidentally stray into the territory of insufficient wokeness, ie, it’s a last resort for complaints about content which wasn’t censored. Other cases won’t be handled by it, no matter how flagrantly a moderator decision violated stated Facebook policy. That’s presumably based on the theory that excessive censorship cannot do harm, only too lenient one.
What a terrific response, but then again you might expect the founder of something called the Free Speech Union to be able to articulate a good argument for free speech.
I’m not sure Facebook will pay much attention to it, but it certainly inspired me.
I love the quote from the WSJ comment piece.
It is starting to dawn on social media companies that the onus of responsibility is about to be kicked into their court as regards to content moderation due to the demands of the impossibly complex Online Safety Bill. Having very little idea about how to go about implementing these confusing regulations (identifying the unidentifiable vulnerable individuals likely to be harmed by unidentifiable harmful information), it looks like they’ve come up empty-handed and resorted to asking the general public for advice on this!
My blunt recommendation would be to go with the principle of Occam’s Razor and simply allow people to talk bollocks on facebook and twitter. Perhaps we should be taking social media posts a little less seriously – most of what gets discussed on these platforms comes under this category anyway. It’s clear, as Toby points out here, that it’s mainly the right-of-centre views and and the holders of these views that are targeted for demolition. If it’s mostly nonsense, as I firmly believe most social media posts are (I would describe many as the culmination of anger, alcohol consumption, and virtue-signalling bigotry), then what we currently see is certain types of nonsense being tolerated at the expense of other types of nonsense.
I don’t know how these content-moderating algorithms sleep at night!
The sound sleep of those self-justified by self-rightousness, probably.
Brilliant.
All parts of it. I think it would work better as a whole if it was shortened somewhat.
I wish I could be brief, but I just don’t have the time!
Hip hip hooray, Toby! Great letter. And the right strategy, to refuse to answer their facile questions.
Well said Toby. But perhaps the best lines for us to take away from this is right at the beginning:
“I’m not going to respond to the questions directly. The way they’ve been drafted, it’s as if Meta is taking it for granted that some suppression of health misinformation is desirable during a pandemic – because of the risk it might cause “imminent physical harm” – and what you’re looking for is feedback on how censorious you ought to be and at what point in the course of a pandemic like the one we’ve just been through you should ease back on the rules a little.”
Good point. We all have to be very careful answering surveys because they are all open to misinterpretation. For example (say):
Do you agree strongly, agree somewhat, don’t have a view, disagree somewhat or disagree strongly with the following sentence: “there is some content on social media sites that should be censored?”
Most normal people would answer that “agree somewhat” or “agree strongly” because there are some sites that should be censored (eg snuff movies). But the next thing you know the authors of the survey are claiming “95% of respondents said there should be some censorship of social media”. The trouble for us is that if we don’t respond then the survey results are even worse.
I disagree with the implied statement that existing practices in this area would be basically ok and just needs some tweaking, ie, It’s generally fine provided I get to decide what should be deleted. There are legal procedures for dealling with so-called illegal content and these exist for a reason (basically, humans are partisan and fallible).
Excellent piece Toby as usual. But that’s short and punchy?!!!😀
Brandeis, not Brandies
I would like to see what Farcebook has to say about the comments regarding the vaccines Steve Kirsch is getting from medics in the USA who are beginning to speak out, albeit anonymously at the moment. Here is his summary…
1. They are afraid to come out publicly due to intimidation tactics such as loss of job and/or license to practice medicine.
2. Unvaccinated healthcare workers are extremely upset with the medical community. They feel they have been treated unfairly.
3. It is the vaccinated workers who are getting sick with COVID, but it is the unvaccinated who are punished with constant testing, restrictions, and threats of losing their jobs.
4. The COVID shots are a disaster. Even for the elderly which is supposed to be the most compelling use case, death rates in elderly homes went up by a factor of 5 after the shots rolled out. Each time the shots are given, the deaths spike. Nobody is talking publicly about this. It’s not allowed.
5. Doctors are seeing rates of injury and death increase dramatically in all ages of people. The injuries are only happening to the vaccinated. There is no doubt that this is happening but many doctors have so much cognitive dissonance that they don’t see it.
6. One nurse with 23 years of experience says she’s never heard of anyone under 20 dying from cardiac issues until the vaccines rolled out. Now she knows of around 30 stories.
7. Doctors aren’t recording vaccination status in the medical records so that all the deaths are attributed to the unvaccinated.
8. Doctors are deliberately ignoring the possibility that the vaccines could be the cause of all the elevated events. The events are simply all unexplained.
9. Many doctors have either quit or will quit.
10. Some doctors and nurses at top institutions such as Mass General Hospital have falsified vaccine cards. They publicly toe the line and encourage their patients to take the shot knowing full well it is deadly. They value their job more than the lives of their patients. The important thing is they are risking 10 years in jail for doing this. These highly respected medical workers are telling the world that these COVID shots are so dangerous that they are willing to risk 10 years in prison to avoid taking the shot. That’s the message America needs to hear. And if Biden were an honest President, he would call for full amnesty and protection from retaliation for all these cases if people admitted publicly they did this. He’d be amazed at the number of responses he’d get. But he won’t do that because it would be too embarrassing for his administration.
11. Things don’t seem to be getting any better.
12. The medical examiners all over the world are not doing the property tests during an autopsy to detect a vaccine-related death. Without doing the required tests, it is very hard to make an association. There isn’t a single “guidance” document from any medical authority anywhere in the world to do these tests on people who die within 3 months of their last COVID vaccination. This is why no associations are found: they aren’t looking.
13. Doctors are being forced to take other vaccines (such as the HIV vaccine) so the hospital can meet their quota. This was admitted to them.
The article is at: https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/silenced-healthcare-workers-speak
I would love to know how they could label this ‘misinformation’.
Yea its a good response but I find the certainty expressed regards the election misplaced.
I’ve read Rules for Radicals relatively recently, published in 1971, and on page 108 it covers a Democrat politician from Chicago becoming very angry with Alinsky because he ‘doesn’t even bother to vote more than once’.
I have absolutely no evidence for any shenanigans on the day, besides the minor stuff and Maggie Hemingway’s book Rigged, but would I be certain they didn’t do anything?
Absolutely not.
There is motive and past form.
No offence, but Facebook is toxic. Why would any intelligent person use Facebook. I cannot understand it. I also cannot understand why any intelligent person would support a platform which suppresses and censors free speech. That is outright dangerous.