Via Mediaite, I’ve watched this three times and still couldn’t tell you what the takeaway is. There won’t be riots, except there might be because people will be righteously pissed if the nomination is stolen from the hero, but even then they won’t really be “riots” because they’ll only be somewhat violent, not really violent. I think she’s crossed up because what she wants to say is something which, she realizes mid-answer, is something she’s not supposed to say and then she’s forced to reconcile those two realities on the fly. It’s like watching a spokesman from one of the fringier Muslim advocacy groups run through the ol’ “of course we reject terrorism but you must understand the legitimate grievances” song and dance, except not as coherent.

This is a nice microcosm, though, of how cable news strains to legitimize Trumpism by fitting it within the usual mainstream left/right talking-head framework, just politics as usual. (Right, RNC?) Turn on CNN at any time of day and you’re apt to find Democrats and Republicans bantering about tax rates or whatever. Then the Trumper comes on, superficially indistinguishable from the others, and sprinkles a few maybe-riots-are-necessary rhetorical dingleberries into the news stew. I remember righties going half-mad with anger when CNN and other networks would invite left-wing activists onto their programs to try to justify the riots in Ferguson or Baltimore, but now here’s someone from the right doing her own version of “a riot is the language of the unheard” — and doing it, ironically, in service to an authoritarian who’s running on a law-and-order platform. She’ll be on CNN another thousand times during this campaign, and then this clip will turn up in some stupid yet inevitable introspective special they’ll put together after the election about whether, perhaps, the media enabled the more thuggish aspects of Trump’s cult of personality. Do tell, CNN. Do tell.

Keep an eye out for her claiming that a “majority” of the “population” has voted for “Mr. Trump.” (All Trump sycophants, including ones as high up as Chris Christie, are apparently obliged to refer to him formally as a sign of respect.)