Will the rioting last night in Chicago do the same thing? Here's Instapundit on the riot:
SEE, HERE’S THE THING — THE FACT THAT TRUMP IS “PROVOCATIVE” DOESN’T EXCUSE SHUTTING DOWN HIS RALLIES BY FORCE: Conservatives align with Black Lives Matter in rush to find blame for Chicago protests. “There was one thing which all of the coverage on cable news and social media had in common immediately last night and it was still carrying on when I grabbed some coffee and flipped on CNN this morning. This must all be Trump’s fault. (The fact that he never even showed up at the rally seems to be irrelevant to our sage observers.) The basis for this conclusion was that it was his previous rhetoric that led to the massive violence in the campus hall and out on the streets.”Ted Cruz has made a statement holding Trump responsible, and Hillary Clinton has tweeted this—it's so opaque that I can't tell if she's blaming Trump or the rioters or both. If it's both, that makes Hillary more decent than Cruz.
I’m disappointed to see people’s eagerness to stop Trump causing them to forget, or ignore, this basic American principle: Offensive speech doesn’t justify violence. And here’s a hint for those throwing stones: “He made me feel bad so I had to burn down his house” is the essence of fascism.
Exit question: Since MoveOn has been so public about taking credit, will the famously litigious Trump sue them for conspiring to deprive him of his civil rights? Because I would, and the discovery would be fascinating.
Violence has no place in our politics. We should use our words and deeds to bring Americans together. pic.twitter.com/FofjognpIA— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) March 12, 2016
By the way, there's a lower case "Confederate" in her statement—as ex-First Lady of Arkansas, she should know better.
And speaking of the Confederacy, et cetera, the Ku Klux Klan hasn't done any rioting of this kind in almost a hundred years. Will Bernie, Hillary, or Obama be called on to disavow either Black Lives Matter or Move On?