Wordsmanship

   Words have meaning and connotation. They can be used to praise, explain, refute, insult, command, request or cloud a term so listeners can't be sure just what is said or meant.
   Advertisers do this regularly, as do politicians. Often, the worst offenders in the game of pettifoggery are lawyers, as they debate the many shades of meaning and connotations that the words may convey, depending on stress and the context with other terms and tone of voice.
   Then again, they may not. One person's perception may not match the speaker's intent.  Or a listener may well expand the speaker's intent far beyond what was intended, even past the bounds of propriety or the law.
   And when challenged, supporters and followers claim they were just following the leader request, or suggestion, or even call it a command. In response, the leader then asserts his remarks were none of the above, that he was speaking in the heat of the moment, and never meant that what he said should have been interpreted in the way supporters -- call them perpetrators -- took them to mean.
   Thus, no one is guilty. Everyone is innocent. The leader never intended violence. The followers misheard what was said, and were not sophisticated enough to understand the subtleties of the speech. Therefore, they can't be guilty.
   Selective emphasis very often is the product of dishonest selectivity, where the speaker chooses from an alternate set of facts to conform to a predetermined conclusion.
   Then, when the outcome backfires, the speaker can insist the listeners misheard. "That's not what I said," the speaker claims. "What I really meant was ... "
   In the real world, especially the political real world, words matter. Meanings matter. Connotations matter. Subtleties of vocal emphasis matter.
   Demagogues know this, and always leave a backdoor opening for themselves to retreat without admitting they were wrong, mistaken, or even that they lied.
   It's called Blowing Smoke.