I understand the confusion. Consider for a moment the, admittedly crazy, notion that some person may be interested in whether a given claim is actually true rather than merely thinking along the lines of "who cares whether it's true, just as long as the mud sticks". Such a person could conceivably then have a motive for correcting the claim from "ordered the arrest of women in restaurants" to "is a victim-blaming conservative" that would actually not be predicated on how it makes him look, better or otherwise. The mind-boggling nature of such a line of thought is understandably cause for the requirement of iterated punctuation, luckily keeping it at only doubling, which you should be commended for.