"Dog whistle," explained

Identified as a Northwestern University student, Sumaia Masoom recently attacked President Donald Trump in Huffpost for allegedly making scurrilous "dog whistle" remarks following the Charlottesville horror. ("Trump Set Down His Dog Whistle For Racists -- And Picked Up A Bullhorn."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-set-down-his-dog-whistle-for-racists-and-picked_us_5993f69be4b0a88ac1bc3856)

The annoying dog whistle phrase frequently turns up these days. Mainstream journalists and publicity-stalking partisans unencumbered by ethical consciences resort to it in nearly each sputtered utterance, it seems.

But it is a calculatedly deceptive rhetorical device. When a targeted speaker simply does not explicitly voice actual offensive ideas or terminology, critical observers intent nonetheless on defamation pounce with the deceitful interpretive toy in hand. The speaker, they then declare, did not truly say what he had truly said. He had, in subjective fancying, sounded a dog whistle, thereby implying to select listeners something entirely other.

The opportunistic critic then freely unspools a lengthy, misrepresentative, and damning critique of said speaker, for remarks never made.

The analogy, though, does raise this question: Given that real dog whistles are audible only to, well, dogs, what is to be concluded about Trump opponents who maintain they heard fantasized racist ones?