Taking what he said - he did not advocate killing “candidate” Clinton (he advocated assassinating Supreme Court justices and maybe President Hillary Clinton to prevent her from nominating replacements. Also, there is absolutely no way you can spin it as a call for people to vote against Hillary:
He advocated assassinating Supreme Court justices appointed by Clinton: he started by noting if Clinton is elected president and appoints Supreme Court justices, there is nothing you can do about her appointments - except resorting to the Second Amendment. He is stating that you would resort to considering a “Second Amendment solution” after Clinton appoints a new justice - only then would you “maybe” resort to assassination. In other words, if you don’t like the justice, people should consider assassinating the justice (maybe also President Clinton to prevent her from naming a similar replacement). Based on feasibility, I think that the call to assassinate Supreme Court justices is maybe even more problematic than a call to assassinate a president only because I believe the justices have significantly less protection and therefore would be an easier target.
for the same reason as set out above - there is no way his comment was a call to voters. How would voters be able to remove a justice that President Clinton nominates for a “life-time” appointment to the Supreme Court. The fact that the appointment is a lifetime appointment makes the “call to voters” defense pure spin and indefensible.
I would actually read his comment as a suggestion to his followers that they could extend the same “solution” to all Supreme Court justices Trump finds objectionable - in other words, i think this could be read as encouragement for someone to also consider assassinating Kagan, Sotomayer, Ginsburg, and maybe Breyer.
While I think that this is another example of Trump’s over-the-top “humor” (I don’t think he is intending that someone actually take him at his word and start killing Supreme Court justices) the point is that he does not understand the impact his words (even those said “sarcastically”) can have on the public. I don’t think he should be investigated by the government for inciting assassinations, but I do think that (yet again) politicians of all stripes should publicly and powerfully denounce these comments (and maybe an intervention to explain what a candidate should and should not say).
Loser Sharron Angle said it far more succinctly when she touched on “Second Amendment remedies” and it was just as effective as trumpet’s remark is going be
CNN picked up this story and called it ‘terrible optics’ and an ‘unforced error’ by the Clinton campaign. How is it an unforced error? They don’t check id’s of people who come to the rally. The Clinton campaign found out about it after the local news station interviewed Mateen and aired it. The local media has said Mateen is an attention seeker who tries to get media attention whenever he can and also to promote his online show.
If they haven’t formally renounced him by now, it’s hard to imagine what he could possibly say that would make that happen. He’s denounced Gold Star parents and called for the assassination of a rival. I think what the gutless wonders will do is quietly redirect the RNC resources as much as possible to the downballot races. They must know that’s the only card they have to play. But they’re still, still, at this late date, in thrall to their base. If Trump spoke approvingly of cannibalism they’d say it was ill-advised and not befitting and they’d tut-tut and tisk-tisk but they wouldn’t renounce him. It’s a pretty uninspiring spectacle but here we are.
“Hillary Clinton is a gun grabber, and everyone knows that if she’s in a position to appoint Supreme Court justices, she will do everything she can to remove the Second Amendment,” Pierson said.
False, Clinton has never said this. But then you knew that, you sickening product of a backed up toilet.
She also insisted that Trump was referring to unification and getting voters to turn out on Election Day in his remarks.
Lie.
Pressed by CNN’s Jake Tapper about why Trump couldn’t just own up and admit he “misspoke,” Pierson pointed to the campaign’s statement.
Trump was putting out a contract on Clinton while maintaining legalistic deniability. He didn’t misspeak anything.
“I think you just saw a clarification come out from the campaign talking about exactly what he meant to say,” she said. “He was talking about unification and coming together to stop Hillary Clinton.”
Repeating the same lie.
Every time I have to look at Katrina Pierson I feel like I have worms crawling under my skin.
This woman is profoundly incompetent and has only a fleeting relationship with the facts.
The comment by the GOP candidate had nothing to do with encouraging NRA types to vote. A close examination of the comments demonstrates he was talking about what they could do after the election – when he loses.
Hillary Clinton has never advocated taking guns from law-abiding citizens. She is for common-sense regulations that keep weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists, criminals, and the mentally disabled.
*
