The Atlantic dropped a bombshell, shocking, game-changing, disqualifying, walls-are-closing-in, Trump should be forced to resign story yesterday, and most Americans either rolled their eyes or yawned.
Matt Vespa has the details on the completely anonymously sourced tale.
When President Donald Trump canceled a visit to the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery near Paris in 2018, he blamed rain for the last-minute decision, saying that “the helicopter couldn’t fly” and that the Secret Service wouldn’t drive him there. Neither claim was true.
Trump rejected the idea of the visit because he feared his hair would become disheveled in the rain, and because he did not believe it important to honor American war dead, according to four people with firsthand knowledge of the discussion that day. In a conversation with senior staff members on the morning of the scheduled visit, Trump said, “Why should I go to that cemetery? It’s filled with losers.” In a separate conversation on the same trip, Trump referred to the more than 1,800 marines who lost their lives at Belleau Wood as “suckers” for getting killed.
It's serious stuff, indeed. And if I were to believe this, it would disgust me. I would be so deeply troubled by these callous and insulting remarks about our fallen military heroes I would be hesitant to put a man like this in charge of the military as commander-in-chief.
But, I have no reason to believe these charges, nor do you.
This does not mean the story is false. It could very well be 100% true. But, we have no reason to believe it because we have been flat out lied to multiple times about President Trump, and this story has the same characteristics of all the past bombshell, shocking, game-changing, disqualifying, walls-are-closing-in, Trump should be forced to resign stories over the past four years.
Every source in The Atlantic article is anonymous. Now, that, in and of itself, is not necessarily an indication that the story is not true. However, each and every other fake bombshell, shocking, game-changing, disqualifying, walls-are-closing-in, Trump should be forced to resign story over the past four years has also been anonymously sourced.
CNN alerted us that Donald Trump Jr. had received advanced notice of the Wikileaks email drop in the 2016 campaign, based on anonymous sources. They were wrong.
CNN also blared at us that James Comey would refute Trump's contention that he had told him on three occasions that he was not under FBI investigation. Anonymous sources assured them of this. They were wrong.
Buzzfeed "reported" that Special Counsel Robert Mueller had direct evidence proving that Trump had directed his lawyer, Michael Cohen, to lie to congress. They were wrong.
I could go on and on (Kurt Schlichter already has in his new book).
The point is, the media keeps protecting the anonymity of their sources, even when their sources get it wrong. Why is that? I would think that when a reporter gets burned by an anonymous source, they would be the first to expose that anonymous source as a fraud. Wouldn't you?
You would if reporting facts and the truth were your sole priority. If your priority were instead to maintain a connection to well-placed individuals who can keep feeding you outrageous stories (whether they are true and verifiable or not), then you would continue to nurture that relationship.
Clearly, reporters in D.C. are rewarded for spewing forth anonymous stories about Trump. Whether those stories are accurate or not are secondary if even considered at all.
And after spending the last four years spending the currency of trust they held with the American people on lie after lie after lie, the bank account which stores that currency is overdrawn. We owe them nothing; they owe us.
They owe us something a little more substantial than more anonymous sources claiming horrific things about Donald Trump in yet another bombshell, shocking, game-changing, disqualifying, walls-are-closing-in, Trump should be forced to resign story.
They owe us names. I mean, seriously, at this point, what is the downside of saying something negative about Donald Trump? Does anyone think that a person would suffer some level of political, financial, or social harm by coming forward and telling a story that would harm this man? In Washington, D.C.? Seriously?
They'd rename the Washington Monument after such a person.
Again, if this story is true, it would sicken me and make me truly despair over the idea of voting for this man to lead our military. But, I would have to believe this story first before I would have to confront that situation. And I don't. And at this point, neither should you.