During the first presidential showdown, Hillary Clinton uncharacteristically touched her face during very specific times during the debate. As if to signal the moderator. According to a recent video up-loaded to YouTube, the scratching may have served to “mean Clinton wanted to get a ‘zinger’ in and [for mediator Lester Holt], to go to her without changing the subject”. The action played again during Sunday night’s second presidential debate, although with much less frequency.
During the first presidential debate, it was highly noted that Clinton was uncharacteristically scratching her face at several specifically opportunistic moments that all had something in common. Clinton always delivered a carefully scripted and choreographed ‘zinger’ after each of the face scratches. Which appear to have been meant as a signal to moderator Lester Holt to not change the subject but pitch it to Crooked Hillary for a delivery.
Perhaps Clinton was just itchy, or perhaps as four-time World Champion Poker Player Mike Matusow states, these are very clear and distinct signalling moves.
Another study that tested the debate and compared it to Hillary’s common actions and demeanour found that Hillary rarely touches her face; and thus her actions during the debate could not likely be reactionary “unless she had something itching her face.” Could this be a conspiracy? Or a conspiracy theory? This sort of signalling is meant to be a covert action that is not meant for regular onlookers to notice.
But, this would entail a large scale conspiracy never before seen during an American candidacy for the presidency, that we know of. A large scale covert mission in which the liberal media establishment, and its puppet players, like Mr. Holt, were knowingly and willfully conspiring in a deceitful and partisan way. Actions that demonstrated a willful breech of a larger mission and responsibly to present things objectively to viewers.
To most onlookers, the debate seemed skewed to the Democratic candidate. While Trump was given tough and unfair questions that were almost irrelevant, then drilled about the answers; Clinton was pitched to comment on his responses. One example was concerning ‘support’ for the war in Iraq.
Holt stated Trump willfully backed the war. Although the record shows he had only stated ‘I guess’ during an interview with Howard Stern. This was when he was a private citizen and before we knew there were no weapons of mass destruction. ‘I guess’ hardly accounts for Lester Holts’ posturing. Trump responded and claimed that it was “a mainstream media nonsense, put out by her.” Clinton followed by scratching her chin, which would mean that either her itch had moved from the sides of her face to her chin or that she was ready for a statement. A few seconds later she proceeds by scratching the side of her face again.
Debate analysis concluded that Holt came down on Mr. Trump much harder than on Hillary Clinton, interrupting him 41 times, while only doing so 7 times for Hillary.
Aside from this, Clinton’s scratch-signalling would mean that some sort of Orwellian political nightmare. Image a world in which powerful elite individuals have control over media outlets. This may seem very outlandish to some. However, a recent poll revealed that ‘only 6% of people trust the mainstream media.’
As such, 92% of Americans don’t trust the liberal media and know it has political and ideological agendas. This is something Americans across political divides acknowledge. While her rhetoric may imply that she will help average Americans, elitist interests need Hillary Clinton in the White House. They will stop at nothing to conduct their agenda against the American people, and only Trump can stop them.