On Tuesday, Donald Trump campaign spokeswoman Katrina Pierson seemingly confirmed that when the candidate told an audience "the Second Amendment people" could "do" something about Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and her plans to appoint Supreme Court justices amenable to gun control, he was referring to an assassination.
Speaking on CNN's The Lead with Jake Tapper, Pierson said Clinton was a "gun grabber" and initially argued with Tapper over whether Trump was simply referring to voting.
But then, Pierson seemingly caved to Tapper's assertion the candidate was indeed saying someone could target the Democratic nominee.
"He was saying what could happen as you just said — what could happen," Pierson said. "He doesn't want that to happen. And in order to stop that, people that support their Second Amendment rights need to come together and get out there and stop Hillary Clinton from winning in November."
So, in other words, Pierson more or less proposed Trump was just throwing out the idea of assassinating Clinton as a possible consequence of her election. But this is exactly the interpretation of Trump's wording that is fueling the controversy in the first place.
Later in the day, Trump had settled on a different explanation — that he was referring to the "tremendous political power" of gun owners and the National Rifle Association.
But it really looks as though the damage has been done.