- The Washington Times - Friday, March 10, 2017


What is it with Democrats and their seemingly utter aversion to all-things-factual?

Take a look at this, from Rep. Maxine Waters, California Democrat, who spoke of the long-ago left-behind “sex actions” in the dossier on President Donald Trump and said, on MSNBC, they “should be taken a look at.”

This is the unverified dossier on Trump about Russia, the one written up and leaked into thirsty mainstream media hands by former British M16 spy, Christopher Steele. In it, Steele alleged Russia had information that showed Trump took part in inappropriate sexual acts while visiting the country — allegations that Trump, as well as Russian authorities, denied. Steele didn’t really stand around to take questions about his report; he went into hiding shortly after releasing it.

The media and left, meanwhile, pounced on other facets of the report to try and show how Trump worked hand-in-hand with Russian authorities to steal the presidential election from Hillary Clinton — another flimsy allegation long-ago refuted by all the pertinent political players.

Most in the media, minus the biggest anti-Trump trumpeters, wouldn’t touch the dossier with a ten-foot pole.

But Waters, apparently, knows something the rest of us don’t. Steele came out of hiding earlier this week and Waters, no doubt exhausted from all her so-far fruitless calls to impeach Trump, used the occasion to circle back to this bunk-filled dossier and tease its contents back into the public’s consciousness.

“I think it should be taken a look at,” she told her MSNBC host, with straight face. “I think they should really read it, understand it, analyze it and determine what’s fact and what may not be fact.”

And then?

Wait for it, wait for it, here comes the fishing expedition.

“We already know that the part about the coverage that they have on him with sex actions is supposed to be true,” she said. “They’ve said it’s absolutely true. Some other things that kind of allude to — I think he should go into that dossier and see what’s there.”

Game, set, match.

The “sex actions” are “supposed to be true,” so that, of course, is the same as saying they’re true. Hmm, that’s a fascinating theory. But does it work when put to the test? Let’s give it a try.

The ability of Waters to uphold the Constitution is “supposed to be true,” given she’s a member of Congress. So is that the same as saying it’s true?

OK, bad example. Let’s try another.

The ability of Democrats to present as honest and fair is “supposed to be true,” given they act as if they do. Now is that the same as saying it’s true?

Dang. This is harder than thought. Or perhaps it’s that Waters‘ logic is a bit off-base, fueled as it is by an all-courts-press to bring this president down and destroy his White House administration.

You know, if a Republican had fueled such torrid rumors about Barack Obama, the lawyers would’ve come out in full force, along with the left’s loudest pundits, calling for a halt to such outrageous accusation.

But because it’s Waters and she’s attacking Trump and the left hates this administration? The “supposed to be true” is shoved into the American mind as very nearly fact, and that, with time, becomes just as good as truth.



Click to Read More

Click to Hide