In the wake of a second assassination on former President Donald Trump, Republicans and all sane people are calling on Democrats to scale back the inciting language. They shouldn't need such an event to get them to do the right thing. 

But some are now doubling down, like New York Magazine's Jonathan Chait, who said that Trump is a threat to democracy, so it wasn't "inciting" to say it. 

Then there was Hillary Clinton, who went all in on continuing to say Trump was dangerous, and even seemed to admonish media who might not, saying media should have a "consistent narrative" about how dangerous Trump was. 

Think about that for a second. The implication of that language and what she's really saying. How dare any media go off narrative and not say he's dangerous? This is the narrative, and you all should be following what we say. That's what she thinks; that's what many Democrats think. The media's job isn't supposed to be to serve the Democratic narrative. But they think it is. 

READ MORE: Liberal Journalist Clowns Himself as He Doubles Down on 'Threat to Democracy' Language

Hillary Clinton Goes Wild With Disturbing Comments on Trump and Free Speech,
JD Vance Responds

So Fox's Peter Doocy had a great question for White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre that just made her have a fit. Doocy said it was only a couple of days since the attempt on Trump, yet KJP was in the White House briefing room, "calling him a threat."  "How many more assassination attempts on Donald Trump until the president, vice president, and you pick a different word other than threat?" he asked her. Great question — puts them right on the spot for their demonizing. But she couldn't take it. 

KJP rages at Fox's @Pdoocy:

Doocy: "How many more assassination attempts on Donald Trump until the president, vice president, and you pick a different word other than threat?"

KJP: "I disagree with your question." pic.twitter.com/1YSMDwXqnS

— Media Research Center (@theMRC) September 17, 2024

KJP then tried to say that the problem wasn't what Biden and Harris were saying; what was dangerous was Doocy daring to question that.

She said she disagreed with the premise of his question. Why? You've said it; Biden and Harris have said it over and over. "It's also incredibly dangerous in the way that you're asking it," she said. "Because the American people are watching." Yes, and they would like to know when you are going to stop with the language. 

Jean-Pierre claimed the administration had condemned political violence, said we need to lower the temperature, and Biden had called Trump to see if he was okay. Yes, all those things are true. But it's also true that they have not paid attention to their own admonition to lower the temperature — that they are constantly demonizing Trump as an existential threat to the nation because it serves their political ends. So, she can't act as though she's affronted by the question. But she repeated again — it's his asking the question that is "incredibly dangerous."

Notice what she doesn't say here — she doesn't say they will stop demonizing him. It's pretty much all Kamala Harris has to hang her hat on as a campaign platform. And then, if she's calling Doocy "dangerous," is she now attacking the free press as well? 

No, Karine, what's dangerous is people posting the Democratic mantra about Trump being a threat to democracy before allegedly trying to target him. That's what's dangerous, not Doocy trying to hold you guys accountable. 

Good on Doocy for pushing that question because that's what the public wants to know. And now we got an answer, by her failure to answer the question — they're not going to stop the language.