This piece was reprinted by OpEdNews with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.
Reprinted from downwithtyranny.blogspot.com
The bulk of the country identifies as "independents" and they're not a patient lot (discussed here). This is who progressives have to look reasonable to when the airship Age of Trump comes crashing to the ground.
There seem to be two groups of Trump attackers these days, those who make statements like "Russia hacked the election and attacked our Democracy" -- in other words, present suspected-but-unproved assertions as fact -- and those who don't present statements as proved unless there's actual proof.
Hillary Clinton, for example, in her first appearance since the election, talked about the WikiLeaks material this way: "I was on the way to winning until the combination of Jim Comey's letter on October 28 and Russian WikiLeaks raised doubts in the minds of people who were inclined to vote for me, but got scared off."
"Russian Wikileaks" -- so easy to say it rolls right off the tongue.
Staying with the WikiLeaks-Clinton case for a moment, there's now even some evidence that the WikiLeaks side of story is the right one. Via Consortium News: "A private investigator looking into last year's murder of Seth Rich, an employee of the Democratic National Committee, has said that the victim's computer shows he was in contact with WikiLeaks and may have leaked Democratic Party emails being blamed instead on Russia." Again, not proof, just allegations, though at least we can see some basis in evidence.
The lack of "allegedly" these days works both ways, applies to comments about and by both parties. For example, from the recent Comey memo report by Michael Schmidt at the New York Times:
The Feb. 14 meeting took place just a day after Mr. Flynn was forced out of his job after it was revealed he had lied to Vice President Mike Pence about the nature of phone conversations he had had with the Russian ambassador to the United States.
How do we know that Flynn indeed lied to Pence? If we don't know, shouldn't the sentence be written "after it was revealed he had allegedly lied to Vice President Mike Pence"? (Even "revealed" is a problem there.) Consider: Flynn may have lied to Pence. Pence may also have known in November what Flynn allegedly "lied" about. In which case, what was the lie? And if the White House already knew Flynn was being investigated for foreign lobbying, what's the point of Flynn lying at all, or even talking about it, beyond a simple, "Nothing to worry about, boss"?
For all these reasons, the quoted passage above definitely needs an "allegedly." Which leads me to this point -- a caution to progressives.
When the Age of Trump Is Over, Will We Look Like "Just Partisans" to Independent Voters?
That's right -- it hasn't even been seen by the reporters who reported on it. From the Times story: "The New York Times has not viewed a copy of the memo, which is unclassified, but one of Mr. Comey's associates read parts of it to a Times reporter." It was read to the reporter? Over the phone? From across a table at Starbucks?
That doesn't mean these stories won't prove true (nor does it mean they will). But we do ourselves no favors when we treat assertions as facts, act too eager to jump the gun on what we want to be true instead of what's known and provable, as many on our side are doing.