Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes has initiated an investigation into remarks made by former President Donald Trump that may constitute a death threat against former Congresswoman Liz Cheney. This inquiry follows Trump’s comments during a recent rally in Phoenix, where he suggested that Cheney was facing “nine barrels shooting at her,” a statement that has raised serious concerns about the impact of his rhetoric on public safety.
In an interview with local outlet 12News, AG Mayes described Trump’s remarks as “deeply troubling.” He stated, “I have already asked my criminal division chief to start looking at that statement, analyzing it for whether it qualifies as a death threat under Arizona’s laws.” This investigation underscores the potential legal ramifications of political speech, particularly in a charged atmosphere leading up to the 2024 presidential election.
During the rally, Trump was criticizing Cheney, referring to her as a “war hawk” and suggesting that her aggressive foreign policy stance could lead to unnecessary military conflicts. “The reason she couldn’t stand me is that she always wanted to go to war with people. If it were up to her, we’d be in 50 different countries,” he remarked. His choice of words, particularly the phrase about guns trained on Cheney, has been labeled by critics, including Vice President Kamala Harris, as an alarming example of extreme political rhetoric.
More Read
Harris condemned Trump’s statements, asserting that they contribute to a dangerous trend of hostility in political discourse and adding to the former president’s growing “enemies list.” In a politically divided state like Arizona, Mayes emphasized the potential dangers of such incendiary language. He warned, “It is the kind of thing that riles people up, and that makes our situation in Arizona and other states more dangerous.”
The investigation into Trump’s comments reflects broader concerns about the escalating nature of political rhetoric in the United States. As the election approaches, the ramifications of inflammatory speech could have significant consequences not only for the individuals involved but also for the public’s safety and the overall political climate.
