Where the clip you played, you had a lot of folks on the right defending trump. but when this indictment comes, and i really believe it is coming, and we get a chance to see the data in there, the detail, the actual facts that are alleged, i think that s going to be a very similar response, in terms of people reading that, and seeing really overwhelming detail, much of the day with mar-a-lago. so, it s one thing to posture politically now. but when you have alleged facts in front of you, and i really don t think the doj is going to bring a borderline case, when you get that set of overwhelming facts, it s going to be much more difficult and costly, politically, to continue to defend trump. so, just to jump on that point, your question was, have there been lessons learned with regards to the political rhetoric surrounding these types of events, and whether or not ultimately, i m assuming what you are talking about is leading to violence. and have we learned these lessons? i think dona
Learned his lessons. he does understand that this rhetoric results in violence. and that s his intention. the intention is to say these things in these very ambiguous, roundabout ways, or you can kind of say, well, just political speech and whatnot. he knows that these are, i, mean to use the phrase dog whistle is an understatement. he signaling to his supporters to go out, commit acts of violence, on his behalf, try to suppress his detractors. and prevent people from coming out and saying that what donald trump did was wrong. what you re tell you about the success of that longevity of that kind of support? i think it s unwavering, what we ve seen is that trump has been able to build a lot of support around his two indictments. the fund raising emails came