Now fully engaged in battle against his remaining shreds of decency, Donald Trump chose a New York Times interview to suggest that he would not necessarily support the results of next November's election if it did not go his way.
Mr. Trump, aiming to unnerve Mrs. Clinton, even indicated that he was rethinking his statement at their last debate that he would “absolutely” support her if she won in November, saying: “We’re going to have to see. We’re going to see what happens. We’re going to have to see.”
The aiming to unnerve Mrs Clinton bit appears to be reporter error; it should read aiming to unnerve anyone left in the nation still keen on having a democracy six weeks from now. Although, to be fair to the snot-nosed silver-spoon-fed parody of American superwealth, he may not even be aware that he has repeatedly been playing footsie with the most dangerous idea in any democracy, the notion that election results may unsupportable if the “correct” side does not win. He may genuinely be that stupid; I challenge all comers to find anything in the man’s long public record that would suggest he is not.
The worst human being in America also, between justifications of why his own marital history must not be spoken of but hers ought to be the subject of national debate, took a little time to boast of his now-legendary shittiness.
“She’s nasty, but I can be nastier than she ever can be,” Mr. Trump said.
This may be the easiest fact check the fact-checkers have ever done.