This captures where we are:
People are debating whether Donald Trump suggested violence against Hillary with his comment about how âthe Second Amendment Peopleâ might be the only group capable of stopping Hillary Clinton from appointing liberal judges if she is elected president.
The Trump comment was in the context of what happens after Hillary is elected, and that there was nothing anyone could do about Hillary appointing Justices, except for…Second Amendment people.
He said, “If [Hillary Clinton] gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks.” There’s “nothing you can do” in this situation because Trump is talking about a time after the 2016 election is over, and Clinton is president.
If he wasn’t talking about after the election, why would he say there was “nothing you can do?” During the election, there’s something pretty obvious you can do: Get out the vote and prevent her from becoming president in the first place.
Then Trump immediately follows it up by saying, “But I tell you what, that’ll be a horrible day.” Again, this suggests the time frame he’s talking about is when she’s already in the White House. Otherwise, both the “horrible day” comment and the “nothing you can do” comment that bookend his Second Amendment remark are total non-sequiturs.
So no, this isn’t about the NRA organizing their members to get out the vote. His comments were about doing something AFTER the election. Why would it be a “horrible day” if all he was talking about was getting out the vote, his vote? It is totally illogical.
There is no ambiguity here.
This seemed to Wrongo to be another effort at a joke by the Pant Load. The WaPo reported that Paul Ryan said:
It sounds like just a joke gone bad. I hope he clears it up very quickly. You should never joke about something like that.
It’s highly unusual for the Wrongologist to agree with Paul Ryan, but that’s probably the best defense for Trumpâs words. But when faced with an outcry after his controversial comments, Trump never admits error and never backs down — no matter how strained the defense.
Why should this time be any different?
Trump knew exactly what he was doing, and he did so in the same manner he has been using throughout the campaign. Â A suggestion, an inference, a little birdie told him, it is what people are saying. Â The dog whistle, the wink, the nod. Some ambiguity to the comment, delivered in a veil of coyness.
Maybe we should remember the very bright line that Sarah Palin crossed a few years ago when she took out an ad that deliberately placed Gabby Giffords in crosshairs, just before Giffords was shot and critically wounded by a gunman. This is different, but really, how different is it?
On ABC’s Good Morning America, Rudy Giuliani gave Trump’s words the real test: How did they play with Trump’s audience? Â Getting Hillary couldnât be what Trump meant, Rudy observed, because if Trump had actually called for Hillary to be killed, the crowd would have gone wild.
Imagine being Giuliani: So invested in Trumpâs campaign that you’re contorting yourself into a pretzel to translate the candidate’s Wingbat-ese into English.
And once again, defending the indefensible.
Words matter, especially when delivered by someone who aspires to be POTUS.
