The level my grandma and brother (her a democrat and he a smarty-pants lefty) are complicit in the attempted assassination is directly related to how they defend President Biden’s response to Mr. Holt.

Headlines across news outlets use the words “Biden”, “Mistake”, and “Bullseye” in close proximity and suggest the president admitted erring. But here is the transcript.

****

Biden: “I didn’t say crosshairs (inaudible) focus on look the truth of the matter was I guess what I was talking about at the time was there’s very little focus on Trump’s agenda-”

Holt: “-Yeah the term was bullseye.”

Biden: “It was a mistake to use the word I didn’t mean I didn’t say crosshairs I meant bullseye I meant focus on him focus on what he is doing…”

****

(That took an inordinate amount of effort to transcribe, btw. You’re welcome.)

The question remains. What do my grandma and my brother do with this?

How they speak of it determines as accurately as any other measure we could develop how complicit they are. The range being

1. NOT competent to stand trial and NOT complicit. This would be the case if they change the subject and unashamedly suggest they had no idea guns existed, let alone would be used on any one of the several billion good-to-the-core fellow men.

2. Competent to stand trial and complicit. They are complicit according to their level of earnestly believing it is not their role to monitor Pennsylvanian young adults’ or elected officials’ integrity. Make no mistake, this option is the more depressed one, at least to those of us happy-go-lucky bible readers and our “Am I my brother’s keeper?” story. This second option would be the case if they actually attempt an on-point answer, but its content indicates they will never concede that Biden did not admit erring.