fbpx

Type to search

#EndorseThis: Trump Surrogates Explain Away ‘Second Amendment’ Comment

Campaign 2016 Elections Endorse This Politics Top News

#EndorseThis: Trump Surrogates Explain Away ‘Second Amendment’ Comment

Share

Donald Trump’s thinly-veiled threat on Hillary Clinton’s life yesterday was yet another in his increasingly desperate attempts to bait his supporters against the “dishonest media.” Trump’s suggestion that supporters of the Second Amendment “can do” something about Hillary Clinton appointing pro-gun control justices to the Supreme Court was just vague enough for the Trump campaign to immediately insist that he was talking about gun advocates’ “political power.”

But the message was clear: This woman wants to take away your guns. Do something about it.

The threat left many of his campaign’s highest-profile surrogates in an awkward position: How can one defend the indefensible?

Luckily, that’s about the only one of the media’s questions the Trump campaign has succeeded in answering this election cycle — over and over again — and Trump’s supporters are well-versed in the art of the word-twist. Here are some highlights.

Rudy Giuliani said that if Trump wanted someone killed, he would just openly call for it.

Katrina Pierson, Trump’s national spokeswoman, started by referring Jake Tapper to the Trump campaign’s clarification of his remarks. She then tried to say that what Trump “said” isn’t really what he said. Or something like that.

But a day later, on MSBNC, she said the story had only picked up weight because of the “liberal media.”

Corey Lewandowski, Trump’s former campaign manager who is now being paid a severance package from the campaign while commenting on the election as a paid CNN contributor, claimed he didn’t “know what he meant” by the remarks (though he also said Trump “understands what he’s saying”), contradicting Trump himself, who said in response to criticism that “there can be no other interpretation” of what he meant, other than that it was a reference to “political power.”

Dan Bongino, a former Secret Service agent who supports Trump, called the remark “imprudent” but then called out media and commentators who interpreted it as violence for supposedly imagining their own version of what Trump said. It’s the “he who smelt it dealt it” of political commentary.

Of course, all it takes is one real person outside the Trump surrogate bubble to explain what Trump actually wanted his supporters to hear. Take one CSPAN caller, who reported that Trump wanted him to “defend our rights with… guns.”

Photo and video: CNN, MSNBC, CSPAN.

Tags:

31 Comments

  1. Brad August 10, 2016

    Ok people, what Donald was saying about the SCOUS appointments was correct and if that happens the only defense we have to protect the 2nd is for the NRA to stand up and litigate as the NRA is always doing. I listened to what he said and if you listen to all of it that is what he was saying, nothing in his statement refereed to any violence, but boy did they jump on it. Do yourself a favor and listen to all of it again. The NRA has filed hundreds of law suits over the years to protect our rights under the 2nd, never has anyone indicated that NRA members should shoot anyone, except in self defense. Read, listen again, PLEASE

    Reply
    1. Paul Bass August 10, 2016

      Yea, right.
      I guess you believe Sarah Palin’s target of Gaby Gifford through crosshairs had nothing to do with Gaby being shot either. Are you paid by the NRA by word, or by comment?

      Reply
      1. Brad August 10, 2016

        Your point???

        Reply
        1. Paul Bass August 10, 2016

          That you are a lying shrill for the NRA.

          But I’m normally too polite to be so direct, but you insisted.

          Reply
          1. Brad August 10, 2016

            “you are a lying shrill for the NRA.” How would you draw that conclusion. I am a member, but i wish they would “pay me” as a “shrill” and what is the “lying” comment. How expressing an opinion can be a lie? Maybe you should look up the definition of “polite”. Never will understand the need for name calling of any kind. I would defend your right to always express your self and agree to disagree, like the 2nd you also have the 1st, but name calling because we differ in our opinions shows more about a person than you evidently will be able to understand. Sorry if you were offended, get over it.

            Reply
          2. Paul Bass August 10, 2016

            It is a LIE to say DJT does not incite violence with his second amendment comment. That is EXACTLY what he is doing.

            DJT “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 1st statement, “If she gets…”, future tense, implies HRC has ALREADY WON! Therefore the 2nd statement “the second amendment people…” ALSO condones (future gun) violence! Indefensible, no other (logical) conclusion.

            i.e. you lie. If you don’t get paid to lie for them, then why do it?

            Reply
    2. Dan S August 10, 2016

      Let’s just say he meant no personal violence against Mrs. Clinton. What he said was very inappropriate & a lot of his supporters could interpret his words differently. The words spoken by this man can’t go unanswered & as President they could be very dangerous. We can’t have someone like this shooting from the lips & having someone else explain what he meant. We shouldn’t need a Trump interpreter to explain his words

      Reply
      1. Brad August 10, 2016

        Listen again what he said not just the medias interpretation.

        Reply
        1. Dan S August 10, 2016

          I read & heard his speech with no media translation. What I’m saying is even if he didn’t mean to target Mrs. Clinton his words carry great weight with his ardent supporters. Someone can easily think he’s giving a wink & a nod to those opposed to Hillary & to take matters in their own hands. As President their could be grave consequences making flippant comments. Not everyone understands Trumpspeak.

          Reply
    3. jmprint August 10, 2016

      You are right the NRA has filed several lawsuit, BUT not to our best interest, that’s where you are wrong, they do it for THEIR best interest. If Trump can’t get his message out to normal people, how do you think the world leaders will react. PLEASE understand Trump is a dangerous man.

      Reply
      1. Brad August 10, 2016

        And you think Hilary isn’t? And your opinion of the NRA or any of several Gun Right organizations shows your bias.

        Reply
        1. yabbed August 10, 2016

          The NRA is in no way a gun rights organization. The NRA represents gun manufacturers.

          Reply
          1. Brad August 10, 2016

            Do you have any confirmation of this? I sure can’t find any, help me out.

            Reply
          2. yabbed August 10, 2016

            Hey, you’re clearly a hack for the NRA. You know who they are.

            Reply
          3. Joan August 13, 2016

            Googel it, the vast majority of their funds, and marching orders come from arm manufacturers.

            Reply
        2. jmprint August 10, 2016

          Brad I used to be a member, I had a friend who passed away who adamantly supported the NRA, so he signed me up. I received all their propaganda against President Obama and it turned me off, worse thing is that they OWN the republican party, what they say goes. I am far from thinking Hilliary is dangerous, she may not be perfect, I know no one that is, but she is compassionate, considerate and a good human being. She has the experience, the tenacity and the character that it takes. I own guns, and guess what NO ONE has threaten to take them away. Trump said IF SHE IS PRESIDENT, that is a future statement. He wasn’t speaking in present or past terms.

          Reply
        3. Gerry Francis August 10, 2016

          They both are. This is an election where a third party is the only viable alternative. Johnson-Weld2016

          Reply
    4. pisces63 August 10, 2016

      I did more than once and read it with the pregnant pauses. Tell it to the marines, my dad served in the WWII navy. NRA members have been threatening this sitting president and his family and I should listen to that lie?

      Reply
    5. johninPCFL August 10, 2016

      Sure, sure. First he talks about “after Hillary is elected” that she would nominate judges for the Supreme Court. Then he talks about his A2 supporters taking action.
      Then comes his follow-on comment about it being “a horrific, horrific day”.
      Why, pray tell, would the NRA filing suit be “a horrific, horrific day”? Why would A2 supporters coming out to vote be “a horrific, horrific day”?
      The “horrific, horrific day” comment clarifies all that came before it. He was either openly calling on his supporters to kill Clinton, or to kill her nominees.

      Reply
    6. insbuysrv August 10, 2016

      Trump is saying that if Hillary is elected and able to appoint several Supreme Court justices they will no longer have the same interpretation of the 2nd amendment that the Scalia court did. But there is a veiled threat when he says “If she gets to pick the judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the 2nd amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know.” The clear insinuation is that Trump is inciting his followers to take up arms.

      Reply
    7. Joan August 13, 2016

      could listen and watch it till the cows come home. Like nearly every other unhinged, incendiary or just ignorant thing Trump has said – it has been aired repeatedly. There was really no way to avoid listening to it more than once, twice even thrice. It was absolutely a call from the podium for a second amendment lone wolf. It was very simular to other calls to action from podiums at Neo Nazi and skinhead group events. He did not call on, or name the NRA or their crack and crooked legal team. You are an apologist for the indefensible, and if Trump’s call is heeded, blood will be on your hands too.

      Reply
  2. yabbed August 10, 2016

    American school children learn in middle school about Constitutional amendments. All but the most moronic of us know that no President has the power to “do away” with the 2nd Amendment.

    Reply
    1. Brad August 10, 2016

      That is true, however every “gun regulation” make it almost impossible to get one, or how about buying ammo, it’s just wittering away until in reality it no longer exists. Check out what is happening in CA and the new regulations that Brown signed, and how many law suits have been filed against them already by CRPA and the NRA, this is just a start to make it impossible. Know your history, no nation has ever remained a “free society” when disarmed.

      Reply
      1. pisces63 August 10, 2016

        England, France, Sweden, Switzerland, Shall I go on? Beware of Me the people. Not legislation. One day ‘we’ the people will tire of the BS and the lies and will take it into our own hands. You going to shoot us all? Its called a referendum and ratification and when ‘we the people’ get that done, what will you do about it? WE are getting sick of it.

        Reply
      2. pisces63 August 10, 2016

        Oh, my yes, you’re sooooo right. 44 million gun owners in US with 192 million guns. Damn, they could whittle it down to 191.999,999?? can’t let that happen by gawd.

        Reply
      3. Gerry Francis August 10, 2016

        Why is that the second amendment people always forget the part that says “A well REGULATED militia”?

        Reply
      4. greenlantern1 August 10, 2016

        Ever hear of Viktor Bout?
        He was a Russian arms dealer.
        He tried to sell arms to Colombian outlaws.
        They wanted to murder Americans.
        Right now, thanks to Eric Holder and the FBI, that fiend is behind bars.
        Expect Putin to DEFEND our rights?

        Reply
      5. Joan August 13, 2016

        “Know your history, no nation has remained a free society when disarmed” There are a lot of people in Europe and elsewhere that would take exception. It is apparent from your post that you are totally ignorant about the history you want others to know. Your not getting this from a Texas text book, are you?

        Reply
  3. Jon August 10, 2016

    After watching the all that Donnie is saying 8 times, it is abundantly clear that he is calling for the assassination of Hillary Clinton and all of her Supreme Court nominees. There is no other reasonable explanation that can be given with a straight face. Further Donnie lies to everyone when he says that Hillary is going to abolish .. essentially abolish the 2nd Amendment. She has never said anything that would justify Donnie saying that. It is the same tired lie the Republicans spread every election. In both 2008 and 2012 I listened to Republicans and some Independents claim the Obama was going to take away everybody’s guns if he were elected in 2008 and re-elected in 2012. In 2016 it’s the same garbage different day different messenger. At least you never had John McCain or Mitt Romney calling on the 2nd Amendment people to do something about it. Trump is the 1st to call for assassination. The Trump campaign 1st claimed it was a joke. If that wasn’t another lie, it was an offensive, tasteless, and dangerous joke. I doubt that everyone who heard took it as a joke. Further, why would anyone joke about political assassination? Is Donnie trying to normalize political assassination by making light of it and making it a proper subject of jokes? Then the Trump campaign decided on a different approach saying it was meant to mobilize 2nd Amendment people into getting out the vote for him based on the lie he told about Hillary Clinton. Surely they don’t expect anyone but the most naïve to believe that. Donnie already has the support of right wing gun and hate groups. There was no need for a call for action to them in that context. There can be no other reasonable explanation other than a call for violence. Some have suggested that it was a call for the NRA and other like-minded groups to peacefully oppose Hillary Clinton through proper legal channels. That would be hysterical if the subject wasn’t so deadly. Again the NRA, right wing gun nuts and hate groups already support Donnie. If he wanted peaceful resistance through legal means, all he had to do was say that. He never even came close to saying that.

    Reply
  4. bojimbo26 August 10, 2016

    Aaaaand the lapdogs ( translators ) are coming out thick and fast .
    This is all to take attention away from Trumpys tax returns .

    Reply
  5. greenlantern1 August 10, 2016

    Do the names Ray Kot, Sunnil Rattu and Martin Caballero ring a bell?
    They were MURDERED at Trump Taj Mahal!
    At one point, it had one security officer for eleven floors of parking!
    Adequate police protection?
    Ask Sheriff Joe Arpaio!
    Should guns be allowed in New Jersey casinos?
    Ask Governor Christie!
    Ever hear of police officers Alyn Beck and Igor Soldo?
    They were MURDERED by Jerad Miller and Amanda Miller!
    Their gang leader was Cliven Bundy!
    Was Trump angry when Rand Paul met with him?

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.