WorldNetDaily's attempt to forward conspiracy theories about the death of Antonin Scalia seem to be running out of gas -- and it's not just because it's hiding inconvenient facts that refuse to play along.
In a Feb. 16 WND article, Cheryl Chumley highlights how the conspiracy has been "stoked" by the revelation of John Poindexter, who owns the Texas guest ranch where Scalia died, being -- gasp! -- pictured with President Obama and had "received an award from Obama for his Vietnam military service." Chumley then quoted a fringe blogger adding, "Coincidence? That will be for you the readers to decide."
Somehow, Chumley overlooked the fact that, as the Washington Post reported, Scalia's stay at the ranch was free, seemingly in appreciation of the Supreme Court declining last year to take up an age discrimination lawsuit involving a company Poindexter owns.But then, that conspiracy isn't as juicy as the one Chumley is trying to push.
WND followed that with an unbylined Feb. 17 article complaining that Scalia conspiracy theorists like itself -- er, "skeptics" -- are being mocked as conspiracy theorists. The article made sure to present the conspiracy as credible, highlighting how "Justice Scalia was found dead by millionaire Democratic Party donor and Obama ally John Poindexter near America’s unsecured, dangerous, porous, and cartel-controlled Southern Border" and lamenting that "If foul play or accidental poisoning was involved with the death of Scalia, much of that evidence has already been destroyed or corrupted when his body was washed and embalmed at a funeral home less than 24 hours after his body was discovered."
WND didn't mention the Poindexter case before the court, nor did it note that even Scalia's son rejects the conspiracy theories: "Our family just has no doubt that he was taken from us by natural causes. ... We accept that. We’re praying for him. We ask others to accept that and pray for him."
WND is having trouble finding people who aren't fringe whackjobs to keep the conspiracy going. Not a good sign for a "news" organization trying to pretend it has some journalistic credibility.