Yes. This attempt to legalese Kimmel out of his obvious implication is pathetic and malicious.
Because if we're going to be this anal about language, Trump supporters weren't desperately seeking to characterize him as
anything other than one of them. They weren't accusing him of being a
#NeverTrumper anti-abortion activist. Why would they? Kirk was against abortion. They weren't accusing him of sympathy to the Zomi Revolutionary Army in India. Why would they? Nobody in the USA knows or cares who that group is. No, there was a general consensus, and it was rather specific. They were (and continue) to accuse him of killing Kirk because of his sympathies aligning with a left-wing disdain for Kirk's right-wing beliefs. When
any political figure is assassinated in public, before we know anything else, this is always the most reasonable initial suspicion of motive. To assert this doesn't make the victimized group villainous.
To phrase it as Jimmy did, by accusing MAGA of casting these allegations blindly, which is inaccurate, clearly suggests they were scrambling "desperately" to deflect from the truth that he was one of them, but of course, that isn't the truth. It was never even a declared suspicion by authorities. Why would they need to "desperately" characterize him as "anything other" than something nobody associated with the investigation characterized him as being?
Because the only one who clearly implied this characterization was Kimmel himself. It's the only sensible interpretation of why he would phrase it the way he did.
Excuse me? The only "trans involvement" I mentioned in my posts was what the police officially shared with us, and the accuracy of this remains; that he was in a romantic relationship with a roommate who is transitioning to female.
This is a reasonable foundation for motive as his homosexuality, particularly being with a trans partner, explains why he despised Kirk for Kirk's political arguments.
nypost.com
