Here is a story of a fictional account of a candidate running for president.
Media and all their activist, political gurus decide the frontrunner candidate has an unflattering mole on his backside in the shape of Mussolini. So they broadcast all their suspicions, adding various attributes about this suspected mole.
They demand that he allow them to see so they can decide for themselves what it looks like and what it means.
The candidate, at first blush, refuses to comply. Now they up the ante. Why that surely means he does, in fact, have a big ugly mole on his left cheek. And it must really be ugly. and he must be really self-conscious(read guilty) about it if he will not reveal it.
Okay, now there a plenty of reasons for them to demand to see this mole, or prove that he has none. What is he hiding? They are to the point that even if there is no mole, it all depends what people will see when they look at it anyway. Besides, that would not matter. The “story” was that he has this mole and the proof there is not one wouldn’t be important, because that is a non-story.
If a mole does exist, no matter size or shape, it will be seen as validation of everything they said. Any mole can be turned into a huge, ugly mole with enough magnification. “And we will find one,” if we have to invent one. “Now you might as well let us have a look see because we’ve determined you have one there.”
This scenario might be applied to most any candidate. Well, except if it were someone named Barack Hussein Obama.In that case: one would not be allowed to suggest a mole, nor could anyone demand to see it. But there would not be any said mole in the first place, so there would be nothing to talk about. Case closed, “there is no mole… move along.”
RightRing | Bullright