“He was probably a pretty sick guy,” President Trump correctly concluded about Sunday night “60 Minutes” interview on CBS about the Saturday night attack on the White House Correspondents Association annual gathering. “A man with a lot of problems,” the president added later in the interview.
“I wasnt worried,” the president said. “I understand life. We live in a crazy world.”
“Look, you have sick people, and you have to mitigate the risk,” President Trump concluded. Hes right, of course. But how?
President Trump also flashed some justifiable anger at the 20-minute mark in a 40-minute interview, when Norah ODonnell repeated the slanders in the would-be assassins manifesto. There are so many excellent questions that could be asked in a 40-minute interview that this was an abuse of time that, while predictable, should trigger a shake-up at “” It is not hard to interview the president in a responsible fashion.Â
The decision to quote a crazy persons libel in front of that enormous audience is a massive failure of editorial judgment, and another incredible unforced error by legacy media that just cannot read the national room.Â
That decision ranks with former CNBC Chief Washington Correspondent John Harwoods epic fail in a 2016 debate when he asked then-candidate whether his run for the White House was a “comic book version of a presidential campaign,” a dropping of the mask that may have ultimately forced Harwood to move to another network in 2019.
Many credentialed journalists seem to lose their professionalism when talking to Trump. Its remarkable how they cant resist trying to “score” a moment on him and use that time to, who knows, do something crazy like ask questions about the battle with Iran?
The questions about the motives of and their “manifestos” do not interest me. It takes only a diseased mind and enough money to acquire a weapon to grasp at infamy after scratching out ramblings from a disfigured reality. What they write is of some interest, but not much. Lunatic scribbles are just clues to the origin of the psychosis.
What would be interesting â and does not appear to have appeared anywhere ⦠yet â is a serious review of all the unbalanced-past-the-point-of-violence people. Where are they coming from, and what characteristics in their past do they share?
These are not “ordinary” criminals seeking money or using violence from impulse or because of a . They are a small subcategory of the mentally ill, the vast majority of whom cannot function well in society, but exist on its margins, noticed only when their conditions leave victims in their wake.
This subcategory is perhaps best classified as “statement” people, though the “statements” are incoherent.
From Columbine to this weekends third major attempt to kill President Donald Trump â and this time much of his â there have been dozens of nightmarish plots to kill either large numbers of innocents who are strangers to the criminal or public figures, many but not all of them accompanied by “manifestos.” There have also been ambuscades where the shooters took their “agendas” to the grave and whose “motives” or self-proclaimed “agendas” are either unknowable or have not been released to the public.
There are enough murderers involved in their own heads, in some kind of macabre theater, that the question should have been answered by the or some other serious students of violence years ago: What do they have in common? What happened to them to knock them off the ordinary highways of human development? Or, perhaps, what was missing from their lives? Gun control activists have their explanations, but they do not reach this category of killer or would-be killer.
The second set of questions is what to do about the society and spreads at the speed of the internet. “We are living in a different world with the internet than we had years ago, but even years ago it was pre
