Jesse Watters did not call for Fauci to be killed.

[dutch508]

Archae (43,721 posts)
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216172216

Jesse Watters did not call for Fauci to be killed.

Our own media outlets need to get these facts straight befor jumping to conclusions.

What Watters DID say was inflammatory, but not murderous.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/jesse-watters-faucis-assassination/

Rating

False

Context
Speaking about Fauci during a December 2021 speech, Watters said: "Now you're going for the kill shot. The kill shot with an ambush, deadly. Because he doesn't see it coming." However, contrary to how some commentators interpreted these remarks, Watters was instructing his audience on how to confront Fauci with questions in order to get viral clips for Fox News. Despite using violent language to convey his message (i.e., "ambush," "kill shot," and "Boom. He's dead.") the context of Watters' remarks does not support the allegation that he literally urged people to kill Fauci.

dchill (28,712 posts)

1. I'm pretty sure that - more than subliminally or symbolically...

... he did. I've seen and listened to the clip repeatedly. There's no question what this bastard is advocating. Words like "ambush," "kill shot" and "he's dead" are unmistakable triggers.

Star Member Deuxcents (3,620 posts)

2. I call BS

I am not deaf n neither are those who may hear permission to do harm. How
Many are gonna check w/ Snoops or whatever after a rally like that? The harm has already been done.

unblock (49,641 posts)

6. Mostly strawman. He didn't technically call for him to be killed

One would hope that our system isn't so broken that he wouldn't have been arrested had he overtly called for a specific murder on television.

So yeah, snopes is correct, he didn't do the thing he obviously didn't do.

What he did do was knowingly use blatantly murderous language and tie it to a specific target. He came as close as he could to calling for his murder without technically calling for his murder.

It's kind of a cousin of "nice restaurant that fauci guy has. It would be a shame if it were to burn down"


Yeah. He went on air to urge people to, sneak up on fauci and boom, surprise him with... a tough question?

Yeah. Right. That's totally what he wants. Nothing hidden in his message at all.

Progressive Jones (5,513 posts)

15. Never underestimate the violent tendencies of the lower right wing grunts. Jan.6th types. nt

Star Member EarlG (19,025 posts)

9. "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?"

Last edited Wed Dec 22, 2021, 08:05 AM - Edit history (1)

That story didn’t end too well.

Star Member Bleacher Creature (10,540 posts)

10. His intent was clear, and he qualified it just enough to garner this type of defense.

He unequivocally put Dr. Fauci in harm's way and he deserves absolutely zero credit for knowing just what to say to give himself plausible deniability in the event that something happens.

Star Member ramen (603 posts)

13. While literally true, this is dogwhistling past the graveyard.

This sort of "it was just a joke" would-be camouflage is just that. The audience intended had no such illusions.

Star Member lapfog_1 (25,705 posts)

14. In this case Snopes is wrong

"kill shot" has a specific meaning in military and hunting terms... it is NOT something one uses as a metaphor for asking a question.

unblock (49,641 posts)

19. It's more than just that one term

The whole scenario is meant to be this clever double entendre where everyone knows he's talking about hunting and killing but literally he is only talking about asking him questions.

Except he gets a bit carried away because the whole of it doesn't quite work.

Sneak up on him and surprise him with a kill shot that he never sees coming? Um, ok, a kill shot that he never sees coming would be a question that he doesn't even get to answer and he's lost the debate or whatever because the question was just that good?

Yeah, doesn't really hold up does it. But the violent reading of it sure doesn't.

Plus, what he really wants is for fauci to be... interviewed more?

Star Member iemanja (48,130 posts)

20. Nonsense

Snopes has repeated Watters excuse. Kill shot is a deadly reference, particularly when before a group of rabid RWers.

I can't believe you are falling for that.

Star Member hlthe2b (89,548 posts)

25. It is a fine line with inciting language. He'll get by with it, but in previous decades I'm not so

sure. There has been great "slippage" in where that line lies. He certainly should have been interviewed by those assigned to protect Fauci, IMO, directly or in cooperation with local law enforcement. I don't know if that is the secret service or a private agency. If the latter, it would likely tie their hands to do so except with highly cooperative local law enforcement.

I'm also not so sure SNOPES is the ultimate authority on this. Sure, legally, it is a fine line. Some DAs-- enabled by more specific state laws-- might have the ability to criminally go after such individuals should a violent outcome be tied to such an inciting incident. Regardless, they could face civil liability, just as an individual who falsely yells fire in a crowded theater leading to trampling deaths.

Star Member Hortensis (49,672 posts)

27. The right has been "trolling for assassins" since Obama's days.

At least. There was a period during our first black president's first term when it was so pervasive across RW media, especially pushed by Christian extremists, that it "mainstreamed" on Fox and became a news event in itself. Many started calling it out on places like MSNBC and CNN, explaining what was happening, but it continued on a bit until the term "trolling for assassins" caught widespread attention, and within a couple of days Fox was forced to stop.

Except that Fox never did completely stop, just cut way back. As we see. The OP is technically correct but 100% wrong about what Watters was up to.

Most of the video and discussion from 2010ish seems to have been scrubbed, but this is the sort of thing Fox and Friends, for instance, would be saying a few times each morning, complete with horrified histrionics and arm waving, about almost anything Obama was doing: "Oh, my god! It's, it's unbelievable that this could be happening in AMERICA!!! How long are people going to take this?!!! How long until someone just...SNAPS?!"

Star Member yardwork (53,333 posts)

32. This is why Democrats lose elections.

This, right here. We normalize. We make excuses. We chide one another.

 

[Ralph Wiggum]

But don't bother discussing the dozens of inflammatory comments by elected members of the Democrat party the past 5 years and beyond.  Those were just figures of speech.

[FlaGator]

Libs are always talking about violence but they seem to be the only ones who act out in a violent fashion.

[SVPete]

Whether wise or unwise, metaphors, by definition, are not literal Deal with it DUmmies, and clean out your own Augean Stables before criticizing the cleanliness of others’ stables.