No, no, no. It was a JOKE. Or is the spin cycle still spitting out excuses?
āWould you believeā¦ā
(for you young 'uns, that was Maxwell Smartās opening line before trying out a fabricated excuse on his boss)
OK.
OK.
See, this election, itās like if Catch-22 and Dr. Strangelove got married and had a female child who got pregnant with Satanās child like in Rosemaryās Baby, that goddamn child would be this election. And its godmother would be this crazy-ass beotch who comes on TV spouting the most laughably implausible defenses for the indefensible that you could imagine would never be able to imagine in eleventy million years. How they let her on in the first place or keep from laughing in her face the whole time sheās talking is confounding to me. Man, but this is going to be a long, long, long 90 days.
Nice try by a convicted shop lifter to justify the unjustifiable.
I wish more reporters would follow up on the āhorrible dayā remark immediately afterwards.
Because it proves the spokesliars are lying.
What makes it not believable is that I donāt believe that Trump is aware that the Senate must confirm the POTUSās SCOTUS nominees. If you asked him about the Advice and Consent Clause heād probably tell you it has something to do with parents signing permissions slips for grade school field tripsā¦or maybe heād trigger off the word consent and talk about rape. Who knowsā¦the dementia is strong with that oneā¦
Shorter Pierson: āHe was saying there is absolutely nothing anyone can doā¦ followed immediately by listing something people can doā¦ something so routine it happens with every judicial nominee. Why would anyone be confused by that? Also, donāt pay attention to the fact it took us a day to come up with this rationaleā
[facepalm]
what makes it not believable is Trump following up his comment by saying, āthat would be a horrible dayāā¦
It would be a horrible day if 2nd Amendment absolutists succeeded in denying Pres. Clinton her SC nominees? No, that would be a great day for them.
By āhorrible dayā, he obviously meant āsorry not sorry that our president got shot by 2nd Amendment peopleā.
Iām gonna miss her when all this is over. Sheās a Special kind of stupid.
"2nd Amendment people have amazing spirit and are tremendously unified, "
No āresponsible gun ownerā would consider insinuations of assassinating a POTUS to be even remotely acceptable. Period.
And itās a fucking joke that these ājournalistsā donāt consider it an interview point to bring that up and have her or other Trump apologists address it.
Well, one of Trumpās mottos is āAlways keep them guessing.ā Iām not sure any two defenders have come up with the same interpretation yet. 
See this could have been belieavble if not for their rapid response statement that said something completely different.
Trump never mentioned the NRA.
She is contradicting Trump himself, who said there is only one interpretation.
Time to fire her and put her on CNN payroll
ā¦ oh wait.
It might just be me, but it feels like the reality-based media is a little too soft today and are letting Trumpās surrogates turn their sewage blasters on us without any real confrontation over their practiced skewing of the quote. Havenāt heard from Josh on the blog yet, and itās nearly noon CDT. I really wanted to get a thoughtful look at this from him, and on top of that, Slateās splash page was almost devoid of Trump when I woke up. Whatās going on?
no, no, try once more, please
The last thing you want in a spox downplaying a call for assassination is an ammosexual robot.
Any explanation that describes Trumpās Second Amendment remarks as anything but a call for assassination is pure spin and sophistry, and should be reported as such.
The never ending spin is making me dizzy