I certainly understand the human instinct to fill in answers where there are none. It's obviously a forceful compulsion. I mean, how many billions of people on this earth believe in religion?
For me, the missing piece in all this is "Why did this story get so much legs"? Occam's razor would say "cause it's true". Dismissing that, I need to fill in the answer some other way. And my personal opinion, with absolutely no evidence to support it, is that the story got legs because the mainstream media let it get legs. Or...possibly even helped it along.
I think it helps their credibility if the term "fake news" can be tied to such an obviously contrived story. It makes their own "fake news" sins seem so much less serious by comparison. I mean, so what if Brian Williams made up a story about a helicopter attack. At least he's not accusing a former president of human trafficking.
The MSM has spent the better part of a decade pushing their narrative, and using some pretty underhanded tactics to do it. Tactics that would normally get them branded as "fake news". But instead, people now have this pizza-headed monster to associate with the term, and that makes things like the editing of Zimmerman's 911 call, or Susan Rice's video-blaming tour seem really small by comparison.



Reply With Quote

