There are 3 major problems with anonymous sources:
- There is the possibility that they are completely fabricated. If they are real or not, they appear the same, with one exception. They have a tendency to confirm a convenient point of view.
- There is no way to challenge the source. While the source might believe what they say, it is also possible they are mistaking.
- The source might be biased in many different ways. For instance, if I were angry with someone, I might try to spread vicious rumors about him simply for revenge.
To be sure, there might be a grain of truth to what is said. It does make it easier to sell the falsehood.
There is one more thing you might note. The source might be completely truthful as far as it goes. However, the source just might be withholding, or is unaware of something that might cast a different light on the situation. let’s face it. We have all been stuck in situations when all explanations make things sound worse.
It is a common practice among dummycrats and communists to use half-truths. It is also a common practice among reporters and papers lacking ethics… such as The New York Times. The truth is, I don’t believe anything from the Times, not until it is well confirmed. This is especially true when they site anonymous sources.
Much has been said about the possibility of getting Bolton to testify. I look at it this way. If he testifies and says nothing bad about the president, it would add to the embarrassment of the dummycrats. If he does say something bad about the president, it is still highly unlikely that he’ll be removed from office. Worst case, he was doing something presidents do and should do. He is the chief law enforcement officer of the nation. After all, didn’t Obama have Trump investigated? Didn’t Clinton use her position to smear candidate Trump? Didn’t the FBI director clear her of all wrong.
Moreover, and most important, didn’t Biden admit guilt before the whole world on a video? Did he not have the prosecutor of Ukraine fired in six hours? Does such a thing deserve no investigation?
Bottom line, whether Bolton testifies or not, there will likely be little or no difference. I once read some very wise words that I believe apply. If it doesn’t matter, then it doesn’t matter.
As a side note, if they go into calling witnesses, there are two things that will be true.
- nothing will be passed by the Senate until the trial is over, possibly Till may or June. (I doubt it will go longer. After all, 1/3 of of the senators do face reelection.)
- those senators are going to get awfully tired of just sitting there twiddling there thumbs (or whatever they use to fight off the boredom) while they listen to the dummycrats spin their lies.
It really is a word. I heard it a while ago and decided I liked it. So I looked it up. Once I saw the meaning, I realized it was used very accurately. Those House managers have absolutely benumbed me with all their repetition. They seem to think that if they repeat something enough times, it will make it so. All they have really done is to benumb us all. Well, at least they did accomplish one thing, though I’m not sure it can be call an accomplishment.
Which is best?
1. Dismiss the case against President Trump immediately. After all, they have not truly charged him with so much as one crime. After the case is dismissed, the Senate could call witnesses exposing the so-called whistle blower and Joe Biden.
2. Allow a full scale trial to go on with witnesses. The dummycrats have far more to lose with witnesses. After all, their presidential front runner just might be exposed of committing the very thing they are accusing the president of, abuse of power and quid-pro-quo. Indeed Joe Biden could end up in jail. Now that could be embarrassing.
Either way, I suspect President Trump would be the biggest beneficiary. He just might end up running all fifty states. Then again, probably not. Sadly, California and New York are too far gone. They would rather vote for a mass murderer than for President Trump. It just must be something in the water they drink.
I guess my preference is for choice 1, though it is really a tough choice.
Oh. By the way. Regardless of the means and methods, they really should serve pizza to the senators during the trial. I will help keep them awake.
During the impeachment debates, according to Kellyann Conway the democrats had to lie. They had no facts to present. I figured it was a good thing to repeat.
The two words are said to be the most powerful words in the English language. They divide the world as it is from the world that might have been.
However, to be sure, the two words can begin a legitimate question. In my case, my question is, “What if Mr. Joe Biden is guilty of Quid-pro-Quo? What if he really did have the prosecutor fired to protect his son.? What if he did it to for filthy lucre?
In this case, if it is true and it is proved, it completely justifies any probe that President Trump made into his activity. In deed, as president, it would be his duty. By the way, it would also destroy any so-called basis for impeachment. Boy, would the dummycrats have red faces?
I guess not. They never get embarrassed. They would just ignore it and start a search for something else. It’s why I call them dummycrats.
Schiff said he does not know who the whistle-blower is. Considering that he has told no less than at least three whoppers, why should we believe it. Even if he doesn’t know, someone on his staff knows. As far as I am concerned, it is the same thing.
As a storyteller, I tell stories all the time. The difference is that I admit it. To some degree, I even advertise it. If you read any of my books you will will realize it, especially those in the Ring or Floater series. Schiff enjoys telling lies as much as me. The difference is that he expects us to believe him.
Fat chance of that.