San Diego CEO Matt Harrigan put on administrative leave over threats to kill Donald Trump



Had any White person made the same comments when Obama won he’d be labeled a vile racist. No evidence is needed beyond the target being non-White. And racism is considered far more reprehensible then mere assasination threats. Also, I imagine lots of tolerant liberals are very sympathetic to this man.


The article now says he resigned and the company’s board of directors accepted his resignation. The former CEO’s twitter account calls it a “flawed joke.”

Seriously? It’s not OK to say that – regardless of who is in the Oval Office! You don’t joke about things like that!


It still amazes me to see so many executives of companies doing stuff like this. Between this guy, the CEO of Grubhub, the CEO of Pepsi, etc, it is amazing how stupid they can be.

And what this guy said wasn’t a joke. It was the full-throated venting of real rage. Hopefully it was impotent rage and not a rage he will act upon.


He apologized that his flawed “joke” became public, he posted it on his Facebook page.


Threatening to kill anybody is something one should not do in civilization.

And to threaten a member of the USGOV is not tolerable in this century.

If he didn’t know that he had no business being a CEO.



Amazing how surprised some people are when they find out a right to “free speech” doesn’t protect from the consequences of overstepping another’s rights, or a country’s rights against treason and fomenting of the same.


If he had threatened Obama, he should go to jail, just as he should go to jail for making death threats to Trump. You just cannot have public officials threatening to kill the President, or anyone else for that matter.


Absolutely. And the fact that this guy was CEO of a **Cybersecurity firm. **Of all of the people who should know better about what gets put out into cyberspace!!! What a gross lack of awareness.


Didn’t the President-elect state during the campaign that if he lost, a “second amendment solution” should be pursued?


No. He said in reference to Hillary being elected and appointing judges.

‘By the way, if she gets to pick, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know.’

His comment may not have been wise but he didn’t advocate anything.


I may be naïve, but I thought it was a reference to folks like The Second Amendment Foundation who’ve been behind the successful defense of the intent of the Second Amendment, Parker/Heller, McDonald rulings etc. Cases the NRA wouldn’t take up and only reluctantly joined late when SAF insisted on continuing.


He was suggesting the possibility that Clinton be assassinated. Like 90% of his statements during the campaign, it was most likely not meant seriously, but as a way of pumping up the crowd and gaining support among extremists.


It’s called innuendo.


That is what I think it most likely was.

It is which is different from saying if he loses people should assassinate her. Taken in a very straightforward way it is a factual statement. That is, people with guns have a much greater chance of overthrowing a government. Even Hillary would agree since she has helped to arm rebels to overthrow legitimate governments.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit