The folly of proving a negative

At some point, accusations must transform to some sort of factual presentation.

The certainty of Schumer and Pelosi is not proof of anything.  Their insistence is not fact, nor is their opinion evidence.

The Democrats and the media have woven an illusion, one that insists that to speak or meet with a Russian official, even during your official duties, is also a plot to interfere with a presidential election and, furthermore, actually succeed in affecting that election.

This is remarkable, when we consider that any question of "plots" actually revolves around the DNC plotting against Bernie Sanders.  Additionally, are we to believe that illicit activities such as Donna Brazile delivering debate questions to a willing recipient in Hillary Clinton, or John Podesta urging the demographic oversampling in polling to sway the results, is unwelcome interference?

When did presenting the truth become interfering with decision-making?  Truth should always be welcomed.  In this spirit, Darrell Issa toyed with the idea of backing a special investigation.  His position was based on the refreshing objective of actually getting to the bottom of something, if there is a bottom, unlike the opaque administration of the past eight years.  There is some wisdom in this, and a welcome contrast.

It is also curious that Pelosi and Schumer are now more focusing on the omission by Sessions of the meeting with the ambassador than discovering the actual content of the meeting.  Isn't that the real point of interest: whether there was collusion between the Trump people and the Russians?  If there is meat on this bone, if the topic is truly election interference orchestrated by Trump and not merely an attempt to hamstring Trump, those who attended the meeting should be interrogated under oath.  The matter would be quickly resolved – end of discussion.  But the Democrats don't seem interested in this tack, and that suggests that they don't expect results from discovering the conversational content, but are more interested in managing perception and obstruction.

The team consisting of the Democrats and the media has now driven the Trump administration into the folly of attempting to prove a negative.  The accusing game will continue until the Trump people can prove that nothing happened, or until an official investigation is conducted and results announced.  The first is near impossible; the second will be a protracted procedure, unfair and obstructionist.  It is an old effective gambit.

We are also to believe that a Russian ambassador meeting a Trump supporter is one thing, but for that same ambassador to meet with Democrat Hillary backers like Schumer (Putin) or McCaskill is accepted, and recollections by them are not required.  But lost in the discussion is that senators do indeed meet with ambassadors in their duties.

Now that Sessions has recused himself, it is time for the accusers to provide substance and proof.  There were other people in the room when Sessions met with the ambassador.  Put them under oath, and let us get on with it.  Proof should be the topic now.  It should be demanded in every sound bite aired or article published that includes the tiresome accusations of Schumer, Pelosi, or others.

At some point, accusations must transform to some sort of factual presentation.

The certainty of Schumer and Pelosi is not proof of anything.  Their insistence is not fact, nor is their opinion evidence.

The Democrats and the media have woven an illusion, one that insists that to speak or meet with a Russian official, even during your official duties, is also a plot to interfere with a presidential election and, furthermore, actually succeed in affecting that election.

This is remarkable, when we consider that any question of "plots" actually revolves around the DNC plotting against Bernie Sanders.  Additionally, are we to believe that illicit activities such as Donna Brazile delivering debate questions to a willing recipient in Hillary Clinton, or John Podesta urging the demographic oversampling in polling to sway the results, is unwelcome interference?

When did presenting the truth become interfering with decision-making?  Truth should always be welcomed.  In this spirit, Darrell Issa toyed with the idea of backing a special investigation.  His position was based on the refreshing objective of actually getting to the bottom of something, if there is a bottom, unlike the opaque administration of the past eight years.  There is some wisdom in this, and a welcome contrast.

It is also curious that Pelosi and Schumer are now more focusing on the omission by Sessions of the meeting with the ambassador than discovering the actual content of the meeting.  Isn't that the real point of interest: whether there was collusion between the Trump people and the Russians?  If there is meat on this bone, if the topic is truly election interference orchestrated by Trump and not merely an attempt to hamstring Trump, those who attended the meeting should be interrogated under oath.  The matter would be quickly resolved – end of discussion.  But the Democrats don't seem interested in this tack, and that suggests that they don't expect results from discovering the conversational content, but are more interested in managing perception and obstruction.

The team consisting of the Democrats and the media has now driven the Trump administration into the folly of attempting to prove a negative.  The accusing game will continue until the Trump people can prove that nothing happened, or until an official investigation is conducted and results announced.  The first is near impossible; the second will be a protracted procedure, unfair and obstructionist.  It is an old effective gambit.

We are also to believe that a Russian ambassador meeting a Trump supporter is one thing, but for that same ambassador to meet with Democrat Hillary backers like Schumer (Putin) or McCaskill is accepted, and recollections by them are not required.  But lost in the discussion is that senators do indeed meet with ambassadors in their duties.

Now that Sessions has recused himself, it is time for the accusers to provide substance and proof.  There were other people in the room when Sessions met with the ambassador.  Put them under oath, and let us get on with it.  Proof should be the topic now.  It should be demanded in every sound bite aired or article published that includes the tiresome accusations of Schumer, Pelosi, or others.

RECENT VIDEOS