The only “side” that matters in America right now is a coalition of the decent and the democratic — people of varied philosophies and creeds who will fight for evidence, good faith, integrity and the primacy of facts as the center of American government.

Well, that’s about 5% of the US population, these days.

Testimony, not individuals, is what matters most in the investigations into President Trump.

Probably not. Because any action taken against the President would have to have the support of a clear majority of the President’s current “base”, what matters is what actual crime is actually being charged, and the extent to which the evidence proves the point in the court of public opinion.

If a president has no base, you can impeach him for jaywalking. The more loyal his base is, the more heinous the crime would have to be and the more airtight the case would have to be.

Impeachment is, after all, a political decision, not a legal one.

A president, being always under the oath and rooted in American norms, is supposed to vet any statement he makes or disseminates as true, because the credibility of the United States of America is on the line on the global stage.

Supposed to, but they never do. Every president has their……problems with the truth. Trump’s are just worst than the rest.

This may have been the most pressing reason so many members of the intelligence community and FBI were alarmed at the prospect of Trump becoming president.

Maybe. Although the possibility exists that they were highly concerned that an antagonistic president could threaten their jobs. Let’s keep in mind that nether the intel community nor the FBI have clean hands when it comes to honesty themselves, historically speaking.

Legitimate news organizations gather testimony from a variety of sources, vet that information by cross-checking it against other sources and report their findings in a new form of testimony backed by the long term interest the news outlet has in its standards and reputation. Errors, inevitable as they are, are corrected in a standardized place and manner. Obviously, political beliefs can influence the facts sought and the context around the way they are presented, but this is fundamentally different from ad hominem accusations of “fake news,” which never attack specific accounts but smear the entire vital enterprise.

I would agree that the term “fake news” becomes a throwaway line which inhibits discussion and debate, and sullies the entire industry.

That said, the larger question is if the news organizations actually care about honesty anymore. Let’s not forget that the first salvo in this war was launched not by Mr. Trump, but Mr. Obama, when he tried to deny access to Fox News; the left has been using the “you get your information from Fox” ad hominem for a decade now. (Fox News’s NEWS operation is professional and although takes a right-center view of what stories to cover, has never been seriously accused of being anything but professional; it’s their punditry that goes off the deep end.)

And yes, we DO want to hear the testimony of white people living in abandoned factory towns and rural areas. But what’s needed are first-hand, honest stories about lives and experience. Forgive us if we reject testimony as low quality if it’s based on talking points or hearsay derived from a self-selected news diet.

All good points. But too often those first-hand, honest stories are presented without context to promote a political end.

The larger problem is that we’ve combined news with punditry; too many people calling themselves “journalists” launch into opinion reporting without any warning; it takes a well-honed critical mind, which most casual watchers are not trained to watch with, to perceive the difference between the two.

The worst is when the “reporter” launches into opinion while he/she is supposed to be delivering news. The “talking head” segments of news shows are almost as bad, especially when they put a “Republican” in the box who is not an actual counterpoint to the other commentator. How is it showing both sides of a political issue, for example, when the “conservative Republican” in the other box is a NeverTrumper?

We’re being fed pablum.

That’s why Donald Trump’s birther accusations against Barack Obama were instantly disqualifying for the job of president years ago. He has borne false witness countless times in his official capacity since then and deserves impeachment many times over for this alone.

Yea, well we impeached but didn’t remove Clinton for lying, either, because it was perceived as being “only about sex”. It may be horrible to you, but presidents are full of shit, a LOT of the time. It goes with the job. As I said before, Trump just takes that little “problem” and maxes it out.

As this year progresses toward its inflection points, especially the November elections, align yourselves with candidates and compatriots who cherish faithful testimony.

I’m going with economics, personally.

Data Driven Econophile. Muslim, USA born. Been “woke” 2x: 1st, when I realized the world isn’t fair; 2nd, when I realized the “woke” people are full of shit.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store