Some 17 named sources go on the record that President Trump did NOT insult dead military veterans as alleged by Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic.
Newly-released FOIA documents undercut claims that Trump tried to dodge a ceremony honoring WWI U.S. troops. Goldberg himself now says it’s “not good enough” to do a story like this with four anonymous sources, but the public has a right to know. Should the public believe words that no man will stand behind?
Background Resource:
Trump: Americans Who Died in War are ‘Losers’ and ‘Suckers’
[The Atlantic, September 3, 2020]
Stephen Green, Bill Whittle and Scott Ott create 20 new episodes of Right Angle each month thanks to our Members.
Listen to the Audio Version
Bill Whittle Network · Four Anonymous vs. 17 Named Sources: Did Trump Really Insult Dead U.S. Veterans?
11 replies on “Four Anonymous vs. 17 Named Sources: Did Trump Really Insult Dead U.S. Veterans?”
It didn’t fall apart. It was never together in the first place.
The Democratic Socialist (OXYMORON), FakeNEWS and The NEW Democratic Socialist (OXYMORON) with ever GREATER emphasis on MORON is now most definitely ventured into the IDIOT category and completely jumped over Neurotic into a deep state of Psychosis Party. The Party has finally lost their handle on SANITY. The Party of INSANITY is even becoming MORE INSANE in word and deed BELIEVES that there is ONLY “A” truth” which allows them to completely IGNORE THE TRUTH.
“A” truth” is THE IDEOLOGY and its use of the “fundamental transformation of America.”
People who believe that Hillary deserved to be President obviously are willing to believe two impossible things before breakfast.
I find it hard to believe that the President who chased after the hat of a Marine blown off by Marine One would say such things. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
“The Atlantic got their eyeballs”…
Yep. Alinsky 101. Get your narrative out there first. People will remember that, not the refutation or retraction.
Get ready for the Trump Scandal-a-Day coming from the DNC and their media toadies.
If it were true what he said, if Goldberg’s sources held up, this story wouldn’t just fall apart so fast. It’s gotta be embarrassing for the workers or staff around Goldberg who KNOW the story’s Malarky. Not for Goldberg, he got his orders and he carried them out. But the staffers who are just workers, interns, whatever at the Atlantic. They KNOW. Those people have to go home and know their guy is lying.
So why aren’t any, not even one, stepping up and calling him out?
The staffers don’t care? Worried about being fired? Probably both.
The irony is that if any one of those people did step up and tell the truth, the job offers from legitimate news venues would come in. Even if the offer just came form a bunch of bloggers writing in their basement, in their pajamas.
The line from Natalie Portman’s character in V for Vendetta about the anchor on TV lying, and how she could tell the anchor knew what she was saying was a lie but it was the party line, so it was say it or … get fired, I think. I need to watch that again.
If it had been Obama, they would have delayed the whole ceremony until he could get there.
The people who believe this sort of thing about Trump would claim that whoever made the decision to scrub for weather–and report is as such in whatever records exist–did so either at the direct order of the President, or on “will no one rid me of this troublesome priest” grounds.
In other words, there is no evidence–by which I mean no possibility of the existence of evidence–that they would accept as valid to disprove the anonymous claims.
One of the first things I found out during my time in the Army was that the Army DID NOT CARE if there was bad weather, or about my wussy preference to stay warm and dry. They had things to do and they wanted us to do them — regardless of the weather ! (I was a ground pounder in Germany and only flew in a helicopter once — thrilling and kind of scary the first time.)
So do any of you know for a firm fact that this particular type of helicopter (and crew) was in fact unable to fly in that weather, or merely advised or disinclined to risk POTUS’s life for a ceremonial purpose? I would surmise if it was, say, a rescue mission to save lives (rather than potentially risk one/any) that they would have taken off in a heartbeat if asked/ necessary.
Actually when it comes to aviation assets they care quite a bit about weather! I am a retired Marine (1980 to 2000) and was a paratrooper in 1st Recon Bn 1981 to 1984 and if ANY adverse weather was detected they (the aviation asset) would cancel a mission in a heartbeat! We used to have a saying, “Time to spare, call Marine air”. My BEST Bn CO always said “IF you think they will send a 4 million dollar bird and 4 Marines to pick up 6 Marines who can walk out YOUR OUT OF YOUR MIND!” The military does NOT RISK Aviation assets EVER!