Oy vey. So we are told [FedEx] lost "the documents" and now they find them again. Let's just unpack this for a moment, because something doesn't make sense.
-
Tucker says his staff saw the documents (presumably sent electronically from his "source" in NY) and verified they were "authentic"
-
Then this source couriered the documents using a "brand name national courier company" from NY to Tucker's offices in CA.
-
The envelope arrived in CA but it no longer contained the documents because someone had opened the package and taken them.
-
Now we are told they have found "the documents" again, but it turns out it's a "flash drive."
So let me get this straight… Tucker already saw the electronic documents, presumably sent to him electronically. And now the source has to send the same documents on a flash drive? I presumed they were somehow originals or something, or why wouldn't you send them all electronically.
Oh, they're MORE documents, you might argue And just too big? Because we don't have the technology to send very large data files in 2020?
Oh, that wouldn't be secure to send such sensitive documents, you say. Then why courier them with any company in the first place. If they're so sensitive, one would normally get on a plane with them and deliver them hand-to-hand to your intended recipient, or hire someone trusted to do same. You don't trust [FedEx].
Oh, well they didn't think that it was too important to hand deliver the (flash drive of) documents, you say, because the source has obviously made several electronic back-ups of the same documents. To which I ask, so why bother hacking the package and stealing the drive in the first place? Wouldn't anyone going through that effort know that the source would have multiple, safely stored copies of such valuable (damning) electronic data? And furthermore, why make such a national news story about the incident, when really there is no great loss, Tucker should just pay a staffer to take an over-nighter to NY and get another copy of the flash drive and return them safely in person.
So, I ask you, why does this sound like a story that doesn't really make logical sense? The only "logical explanation" I have is that it's made up. And the reason Tucker would make up a story like that is the same reason that they often play these games: to win our trust. In a landscape where the cabal has lost the trust of the people, there are few voices left that the people will still turn to. The cabal has to manufacture a narrative that a few journalists are "rogues" — true defenders of freedom, at any cost — journalistic warriors who are attacked by the very institutions that employ them and broadcast their show. Because when everything is at stake, that's what Fox News would do right?
No, when everything is at stake, they will lie, and lie, and lie, trying to maintain the illusion of democracy. To keep the people from finally figuring out that the cabal always owned every angle, every high profile news anchor, every narrative, all sides. That's how they kept the ultimate secret a secret for so long.