Donald Trump didn’t just get a friendly Fox News platform to spin his suggestion that supporters assassinate Hillary Clinton, host Sean Hannity even fed Trump his talking points for him.
In case you’ve missed it, Trump stepped in it again yesterday when he suggested Second Amendment supporters could find a way to stop Clinton from appointing Supreme Court judges if she gets elected:
TRUMP: If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know. But I tell you what, that will be a horrible day if Hillary gets to put her judges in – right now we’re tied. You see what’s going on.
Of course, Trump didn’t say Clinton should be assassinated. But anyone with half a brain could recognize that’s what he meant. What else would he be suggesting “Second Amendment people” do after Clinton was elected? Mobilize to impeach her before she nominated a Supreme Court judge?
Thomas Friedman nailed it in today’s New York Times column. He said that despite giving himself enough “plausible deniability,” Trump knew what he was doing. Distrubed extremists, Friedman wrote, “hear the signal in the noise,” “the inspiration and the permission to do God’s work,” and “are not cooled by unfinished sentences.” Friedman said this kind of rhetoric is how Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin got assassinated. He might just as well have cited the assassination of abortion provider Dr. George Tiller who was demonized as “Tiller the baby killer” for years by Bill O’Reilly.
But Hannity didn’t care about the danger – other than to his preferred candidate. He was so worried about that, Hannity delivered Trump's defense for him.
HANNITY: So, obviously, you are saying that there’s a strong political movement within the Second Amendment and if people mobilize and vote, they can stop Hillary from having this impact on the court, but that’s not how the media’s spinning it. What’s your reaction to it?
“There can be no other interpretation. Even reporters have told me, I mean give me a break,” Trump agreed.
CNN's Brian Stelter, who ripped Hannity on Sunday for helping to promote Trump’s dangerous and baseless claim that the November election will be rigged, blasted him again in last night’s “Reliable Sources” newsletter. Stelter noted that Hannity had a “yuuuge” opportunity with his Trump interview last night.
So what did Hannity do? Did he seize this moment to challenge Trump? To denounce talk of political violence? No. He basically put words in Trump’s mouth and blamed the media.
Hannity’s not a journalist. But what I said on Sunday’s “Reliable Sources” about Trump’s “rigged election” conspiracy theory applies to this situation too. Even an interviewer who openly supports a candidate, who’s rooting for a candidate, has a responsibility as a broadcaster/as a member of the media. When a candidate is saying something dangerous, the interviewer has to push back. (his emphasis)
Clearly, Hannity doesn’t care about responsibility. He wants his guy elected and he doesn’t seem to worry about anyone getting mowed down in the process.
Oh, and by the way? Trump is nowhere near tied with Clinton in the polls - another Trump lie Hannity didn't feel the need to challenge.
Watch him spoonfeed Trump below, from the August 9 Hannity.
UPDATE: As per a reader's comment in the comments section, it is quite possible that when Trump said, "We're tied," he was referring to Supreme Court justices.
Trump has learned from his long self-promotion career and lifetime in the spotlight, to spew vague nonsense implying attention-grabbing craziness laden with multiple meanings to provide him with an exit ramp. Like his attack on Megyn.
He’s learned from his mentors like Rush Limbaugh who will titillate his audience with race-baiting like “Barack the Magic Negro” then gleefully bask in the attention as he disingenuously re-explains some innocent meaning.
As for Hannocchio, his tenure with the network may not last long. People are talking to 21st Century’s law firm, and naming names.
You could be right. I did hear Trump’s full quote and I thought he was talking about Clinton but it makes more sense if he was talking about the Supreme Court. If he wasn’t such a constant liar and self-promoting exaggerator, I might have thought of the Supreme Court myself.
Anyway, I updated my post to make the point that that’s what he may have meant.
I mean, if we, the Trump supporters, hear that Trump is tied with Clinton, then it will only make sense if Clinton wins by 15 points the election will have been rigged.
Get it? Trump is going to tell his supporters until election day that the race is tied… and if they hear different it means the election is rigged.
Note this time and space. It will become reality…
“Trump is nowhere near tied with Clinton in the polls – another Trump lie Hannity didn’t feel the need to challenge.”
And Trump is NOT EVEN CLOSE to Clinton in the Electoral College:
Remember: no Democrat has won GA since 1992 (Bill Clinton).