Imagine that you are running for President of the United States.
You.
You are giving a speech. You realize that your words will not only impact yourself, but the millions of followers who are listening to that speech.
Will you make a statement that--even as a supposed "joke," even "accidentally"--can be interpreted as a suggestion that, should your opponent win, that she should be assassinated?
Now, let's look at Trump:
Time and time again, he has made suggestions--that his judge in his Trump U. lawsuit is a Mexican racist; that his opponent in the primaries had a father with an association to Presidential assassin Lee Harvey Oswald; that opponents in his crowds should be physically attacked--these and countless more.
All with the same technique:
Imply the slur or violent action, and then deny responsibility--attributing it to the "many" unnamed "people who say," that he "has heard that this should occur" from others, and so on.
He has done this again--this time, in true nihilistic fashion, with regard to the most extreme form of political violence.
This tactic, in a casino contract negotiation, may leave the opposing party with a broken contract--as indeed it has, throughout Trump's volatile and ultimately failing career in that area.
In the world of Presidential politics, it instructs your most extreme followers as to how they should act--and threatens your opponent with the very worst of politics, one that is so repugnant as to be disqualifying in a Democratic Republic:
Threatening, should they win, their very lives.
