Why do you feel the need to defend the guy who is being traced by the people doing the crime as their catalyst to go from stating opinion to doing something physical? We have a guy who is in charge of things saying that specific people are enemies- which is a VERY different word than opposition. Enemies that should have something come down on them, given how "evil" and divisive they are being accused of. This leader goes out of his way that there are good people on the only groups so far that actually have used violence. And have accused that other side that they will take up violence if they win the election.
Why do you feel the need to defend that? That kind of tone has lead to violence before, and always brushed off- recall Palin using cross hairs on opposition, which can be traced to the assassination attempt on Gabby Gifford. Let alone the history of different countries where leaders used these kinds of words.
This isn't new, so don't pretend that this is a unique situation where the leader saying these things should have no responsibility, since they are only words.
Sad that you feel the need to find some kind of excuse that the tone the moron in chief uses is ok.