Tonight for the third time in a week, I heard the third talking head on Fox News say "Fake news is like the claims that Hillary Clinton was running a pedophile ring out of a Pizza Parlor." I put that in parenthesis because I believe each of them said the exact same words. If they weren't exact, there was very little change from person to person.
This strikes me as odd for repetition, frequency and for the fact that anyone who has investigated the Pizzagate story, knows this is not nor ever was to my knowledge ever the consensus claim made by citizen investigators. This description is someone's condensing of the story in a manner that isn't nearly representative of the truth.
The connection to Hillary is there being she frequented and took campaign money from one or more of the pizza parlors involved in the information coming out on Pizzagate. There is also a connection from Hillary to Haiti, where they hate her for ripping off their country and where child sex trafficking is a serious problem. Yet another connection to Hillary is that her campaign manager and Bill Clinton's previous Chief of Staff John Podesta, is also implicated. It was in his mails that references to known pedophillia language, spirit cooking and the pizza parlors was originally found sparking the #PizzaGate #PedoGate references in the first place. There is even a round-about connection to Hillary via George Soros having given money to a PAC that supported one of the Pizza Parlors.
But never have I heard an investigative report come out with the exact claim now being pushed as fake news by multiple people commenting on Fox News, ie "Hillary Clinton was running a pedophile ring out of a Pizza Parlor."
So, I ask, why is this suddenly something that talking heads seemingly otherwise known as reputable and right leaning feel it is important to get across using such precise condensed wording?
But mainly I ask, why is it they are not referring to the story in the correct way but are instead mis-stating a conclusion that was never reached.
Is this to throw people who don't know the story off the track causing them to dismiss it for being what seems completely outrageous? OR, could it be this is what they know about it off the record in a way that never came out as the result of any citizen investigation that I am aware of. Are they giving away well known insider information without realizing it?
If a rare investigator summarised the PizzaGate story in that manner, I am not aware of it. Even if it was inferred by an investigator, that leaves the question of why this one, singular and rare view remains the parroted reference used by those who use it to identify fake news? There are so many more dots and persons connected to this story that if I was asked to summarize it, I would put it as, "The story about potential child trafficking that came out of the Wikileaks Podesta emails."
(See the difference?)
If the story being investigated surrounding the connections of Clinton, Podesta or the owners of the Pizza Parlors to child trafficking is threatening to actual criminals involved, the guilty elements will be putting out their own fake news. Maybe I am wondering if this is what is going on through the recent mentions of this story in the manner I described.
That leads to the final question I'll ask in this blog, - so if parroting this odd description of PizzaGate is going on because maybe there was one or two investigators who put that out there, should we be questioning their motives rather than assume they just jumped to a conclusion that isn't warranted, or at least, not yet?
It was difficult for me to do the job I was paid to do, with my own employees, that I couldn't get involved in a 'ring' of any kind.