Wednesday, July 20, 2016

Melania Trump Was Rickrolled...But By Whom

The Chicago Boyz get it both right and wrong here.



In other words, Melania Trump’s speech was Rickrolled.

To those who do not recall the fad from 2008 or so, Rickrolling was providing a link which purported to be something else, but in fact linked to a Rick Astley video, in fact, the very video whose lyrics were included in Melania Trump’s speech.

The only plausible explanation for the presence of these lyrics is that someone who participated in the drafting of Melania Trump’s speech intentionally included the Rick Astley lyric, apparently as a signal the speech had been “hacked.”

The Rick Astley lyric is a mocking gesture, a flipped bird from the saboteur.

There is no rational explanation for Melania Trump knowingly or intentionally including the Rick Astley lyric in her speech.
Someone who knew what the Rick Astley lyric represented included it in the speech.

Others have suggested that the so-called plagiarism might have been intentional sabotage by someone involved in the speech-writing process, e.g. this article.

In fact, there is no other plausible explanation.
Either Melania Trump knowingly included the plagiarized Michelle Obama quotes in her initial draft — or she did not.

It is barely possible she did, though highly unlikely.
Either Melania Trump “Rickrolled herself” — or she did not.
That is impossible.

It makes no sense at all.

Melania Trump’s speech was intentionally sabotaged.

What no one seems to have pointed out is that the production of this speech, like any important written work product, is a heavily documented process.

Melania Trump and the Trump campaign claim that she wrote the speech. What precisely that means is not clear. What it likely means is that she drafted it, or prepared an initial draft. What is certain is that whatever draft Melania Trump prepared was then circulated for comment and editing. That is the standard process. It is inconceivable that she wrote something in private and then gave the speech to the Republican National Convention with no input or review by anyone else. To the contrary, we know that the speech was the result of a long drafting process and was rehearsed repeatedly, and probably revised and refined during that process as well. Some number of other persons were involved in the process.

The documentary evidence within the Trump campaign, including email traffic and draft versions of the speech, will show with certainty at what point in the drafting process the Michelle Obama language was added, and when the Rick Astley language was added.
The documentary evidence within the Trump campaign will also with certainty identify the person who added each of these items to Melania Trump’s speech.

If Melania Trump’s initial draft did not include this language, when was it added?

Who put it in?

What was that person’s motive?

Did this person act alone?

Was this a dirty trick done in collusion with others?

If so, with whom?

Did the person who added the language send email or text messages which can be examined to determine whether that person tipped off anyone to break the plagiarism story?

Did that person breach any confidentiality agreement or other agreement with the Trump campaign?

Is that person subject to a lawsuit?

How did someone hostile to Trump, willing and able to sabotage Melania Trump’s speech, penetrate the campaign organization undetected?

Are there other moles in the campaign organization?

These are all questions that need to be answered.

Determining precisely who was responsible, what their motives were, and how they did it, would be the kind of questions a real news media would be asking.

Instead, they are acting like the Democratic operatives they are, presenting the consensus anti-Trump narrative, while failing to note that it makes no sense.

Bottom line: A calculated attack was made on Trump’s campaign, his wife’s speech was hacked and an important success was turned into a circus and an embarrassment for the campaign.



The culprit is a lot closer to home than that.  It wasn't some Democrat infiltrator.  It was undoubtedly a long time Establishment Shitbird.  Undoubtedly female because men wouldn't care about making a good looking woman, look bad.  And unquestionably a Bush dynasty minion, the GOP is supposed to be their exclusive club afterall, Somebody who was looking forward to an important posting next year isn't going to get it and she is as pissed off as wet cat at Trump for that.  Striking at his good looking trophy wife fits that profile. 

Although I will grant the possibility of a Cruz supporter.  They have earned a rep for underhanded tactics but he wouldn't attract that kind of woman.

My money is still on a true establishment type

1 comment:

Esteban Serafini said...

That speech was an absolute success.
You don't believe me? See for yourself what had happened:

Trump has entered a phase in his campaign in wich he has to make himself look presidential. He decided to use the press for this. How? Making us see Melania Trump as the First Lady.

By using parts of Michelle's speech in 2008, Trump baited the press. The press happily took the bait and bombarded us with hours of coverage comparing Melania with the current First Lady, effectively hipnotizing us into see her as the wife of the next president.

The rickrolling may be intentional as well. The memetic potential of this phrase its huge, and in this election, memes are the new weapons

He turned an otherwise intrascendent speech into a weapon of mass persuasion, and everyone it's falling for this