I don't know why Leavitt responded like that. If I hadn't read what she said, I would have assumed Trump shared the video because of the material that took up the first 97% of the video. Look at it here. It's somber technical material about tampering with voting machines in the 2020 election. I would have assumed that he never even saw the discordant image of the Obamas as apes that is spliced in at the very end, in the last 2 seconds.
I would have speculated that some sneaky person spliced that image in to trick Trump supporters into passing the video along unwittingly and becoming targets for accusations of racism.
Who sticks around for the full 62 seconds? Well, maybe some people do, and then when the Obama image pops up, they probably think what is this bullshit? It doesn't belong. Who put this here? Those people probably don't share the video. Those who share probably didn't watch until the end, and I would suspect that the sharers, those dupes, were prominent enough that eventually Trump saw it and shared it, shared it without watching to the very end, just assuming it was more of the usual stolen-election stuff.
But Leavitt's defense undercuts my assumption. She's just: Ooh, it's a meme. Don't you know memes? As if the existence of the full-scale "Lion King" video — a very stupid video — justifies cutting out one offensive image and pasting it in anywhere.
Leavitt is not Trump, and maybe she tosses off whatever notion she comes up with and she had no idea what went on in Trump's mind. Maybe my assumption is closer to the truth. I don't know. But I do think that if my assumption is wrong it's a better story than what Leavitt came up with.





