After the first presidential debate in September, the liberal media mocked conservatives for touting conspiracy theories, though not shockingly, some of those theories were later proven to have been spot-on.
In a rather ironic twist of fate, the conspiracy theorists the second time around happened to be these very same smug liberals — though the theory they tried to peddle stood zero chance of ever being proven true.
Why? Because according to them, GOP candidate Donald Trump purposefully stood too close to Clinton as she spoke during the second presidential debate, and he did so because he was so riled up by her that he intended to assault her.
“He is decreasing stress by doing all that movement,” claimed some body language hack speaking on CNN after the debate. She also labeled Trump’s movement’s a “pre-assault indicator.”
“So at some parts watching last night, I was really getting nervous, because she was in his space,” she continued. “He is like a dog who is starting to get anxious, so I had a little anxiety during these moments.”
But the conspiracists and left-wing loonies are forgetting one massive fact: The multiple cameras surrounding the stage could make it appear like Trump was always behind Clinton.
Conservative Tribune provided the video below as proof that the multiple cameras were in use:
As you can see from the video, there were at least two stationary cameras in use for the debate — along with a mobile boom camera that was used to shoot the video above. With that many angles available, the media could make it look like Trump was behind Clinton regardless of where he was on stage.
But that important fact didn’t stop the crazed body-language “expert” from labeling Trump as a dangerous “dog.”
If Trump was a “dog,” then this woman was a complete dolt — with a brain smaller than an ant.
To listen to her schizophrenic and paranoid theories, watch the video below:
— New Day (@NewDay) October 10, 2016
What actually occurred was that several times during the town hall-styled debate, Clinton approached the audience from Trump’s side of the room.
During these instances, Trump would impatiently circle the stage for a bit and then take a standing position by his podium, which just happened to be positioned behind the Democrat candidate.
And because he did this, it seemed “logical” to liberals to conclude that he intended to assault her. Keep in mind, though, that these were the same doofuses known to complain about men engaging in “mansplaining” or “manspreading.”
Apparently, Trump had manwalked and manstanded, and that made him an assaulter.
Makes perfect sense, right?