And the more general tactic was used very well by Trump during the campaign. For example when he claimed to be being "sarcastic" when he said Clinton and Obama "founded" ISIS.
I found most fascinating - in a horrible way - the exchange he had with a conservative radio host (http://www.hughhewitt.com/donald-trump-makes-return-visit/):
HH: I’ve got two more questions. Last night, you said the President was the founder of ISIS. I know what you meant. You meant that he created the vacuum, he lost the peace.
DT: No, I meant he’s the founder of ISIS. I do. He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her, too, by the way, Hillary Clinton.
HH: But he’s not sympathetic to them. He hates them. He’s trying to kill them.
DT: I don’t care. He was the founder.
... [later]
DT: If he would have done things properly, you wouldn’t have had ISIS.
The problem here is that he's saying a) Obama IS the founder of ISIS, and b) Obama created the conditions for their rise. One of these is reasonable (in the sense that it can be discussed) and one is clearly nonsense.
Which means that he can claim to his supporters one thing - the crazy one - and then defend himself against critics by pointing to the saner version and cry 'sarcasm!'. It's like the phrase "talking out of both sides of your mouth" but at the same time.