Rep. Fredrica Wilson is not new to the political spotlight game. She is aware that the squeaky cog gets the oil. But in today’s political climate and how fast the Overton window has its effect in social media, is it wise to make presumptions about political variables, while using information that hasn’t been given a foundation to hold up said variables yet?

This past Thursday, Rep. Wilson spoke at the annual Legislative and Policy Conference organized by the National Action Network. During her speech, Wilson made a prediction that based on the indictments being made in DC currently, the President Trump will find himself getting indicted, and will resign before he gets impeached based on a lie that might revolve around people trying to harm his 11 year old son, Barron Trump.

“I think it’s just going to get so tight and it’s going to close in and then everybody is going to be indicted around this president, and then he is going to realize he is probably next on the list. And I think he is going to come up with an excuse like ‘somebody is trying to kill Barron, and so I’m going to resign.”

This presumption of what is to come politically in Washington comes after Rep. Wilson accused President Trump of being disrespectful to the widow of a fallen soldier during a phone call to the family. It caused a roar to happen on multiple national news networks as every platform went back and forth on the validity behind the accusation. Which led to a tweet from President Trump himself.

President Trumps reaction to the accusation started a snowball effect on the conversation of what is considered disrespectful in politics. Rep. Wilson was then brought on the national spotlight to uphold her own arguement on the situation. During the interview, she began to speak on what she thought the focus should be directed at, which lead to her raising the issue on human rights and warfare in Niger, where the attack took place which lead to the death of an American soldier.

What began to unfold after the statement was made was a public view of how politicians can take an event, and turn it into a political talking point for an agenda that they may be self involved in to further themselves as career politicians.

This doesn’t have an effect on defining who’s right or wrong, but opens up another question of, is what you said on the right side of the people you’re reaching for? Is utilizing the death of a soldier as a reason to attack the presidents character a good platform to carry the real agenda you want to forward?

Using information at hand, outcomes due to reaction of actions, and end results, the Overton window will have its say.