The world of politics has never been peaceful, but nowadays the political scene appears to be as messy as ever. The recent second assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump has taken over news headlines, just mere months after the previous scare in Butler, PA.
On September 15th, a 58-year-old man named Ryan Routh was caught targeting the former president. Routh was staking out in the bushes of the West Palm Beach location of the Trump International Golf Club when he was found. At the end, the only shots fired were those of Secret Service towards Routh as he attempted to flee after being spotted. Routh was subsequently arrested and appeared in court on September 30th, pleading not guilty to the charges.
In a new turn of events, the Department of Justice made the shocking decision to release a letter penned by Routh himself. The handwritten note was discovered in a box, along with ammunition and a metal pipe. Routh had visited a witness’s home previously and left the box there, and that witness later alerted the authorities of its presence. The letter reads, “This was an assassination attempt on Donald Trump but I failed you. I tried my best and gave it all the gumption I could muster. It is up to you now to finish the job; and I will offer $150,000 to whomever can complete the job. Everyone across the globe from the youngest to the oldest know that Trump is unfit to be anything, much less a US president…” With tensions already high and the country still reeling after the first assassination attempt, the release of this letter has added another twist to the election season.
Routh, in his letter, offers a large amount of money for anyone who succeeds in assassinating Trump. Normally, evidence such as this is not open to the public for reasons of security and further incitement. In fact, Attorney General Merrick Garland received criticism for allowing Routh’s letter, or manifesto, to be released. According to the Cambridge Dictionary, a manifesto is “a written statement of a person or group’s belief, aims, and policies, especially their political beliefs.” This letter clearly falls under this definition, as Routh clearly states what he wishes the fate of Trump to be. Garland and the Department of Justice have been criticized for what was deemed a lapse in judgment, as Routh’s manifesto could arguably be seen as a forum for a criminal and incite future criminal activity. By providing incentive to “complete the job,” others may feel more inclined to follow in Routh’s footsteps, regardless of whether or not Routh actually intended on harming the former president. Even though Routh never did shoot at Trump, he had a detailed plot and a means to do so, as well as the letter as a failsafe.
Releasing items of this violent political nature is generally seen as a bad idea, hence why manifestos written by mass shooters are usually not revealed to the public. What now comes into play is the First Amendment, which protects free speech and freedom of expression. This tricky topic has appeared again and again in Supreme Court cases. The 1919 ruling of Schenck v. United States introduced the test of “clear and present danger,” in essence a test that determines if speech that displays an imminent risk is protected under the First Amendment. The Constitution does not shield an individual if their speech does not pass the clear and present danger test. The question remains as to if Routh’s scrawled words will be considered as truly dangerous, and if the Department of Justice did make an error. While we as citizens should have the right to be informed, it remains to be seen if Routh’s letter will be part of another free speech case, considering the ramifications of transparency.
Leave a Reply