Wednesday, June 29, 2022

Since I Brought It Up

Let's bring a little more light to this dark corner: Yeah, there's always the problem of reporting based on "she said/Anonymous said." But what about denying the substance, rather than the details? Always consider the source (who is not necessarily Ornato, but reportedly is Ornato-adjacent). Because an anonymous source threatening to "challenge" Hutchinson's testimony is not the same thing as proving she lied under oath: Whether or not Trump was that petulant and violent, he certainly wanted to go to the Capitol, to have his Mussolini moment. Trump hasn't denied it, "Anonymous" doesn't deny it.  That simple, unchallenged fact,  connects with Hutchinson's testimony that Cippolone, in her presence, told Meadows such an act would violate all manner of criminal laws, and was "insane." Yup. If they're gonna testify, it's without boundaries as to what they saw. There is no criminal exception privilege, even for SS agents.

Even Jonathan Swan, who I presumed should know better, is swallowing this shallow and barely fleshed out "anonymous" report hook, line, and sinker:
And no, it is not "second hand evidence."  It is what she was told by two different persons with knowledge of the incident.  We should expect better than this kind of "analysis." Gauntlet thrown. This is exactly where the discussion should be, and no further.

No comments:

Post a Comment