By Thaddeus G. McCotter| February 16th, 2019
As we bemusedly observe U.S. Representative Adam “Pathfinder” Schiff (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, continue to twist in his idiot wind—he now claims Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s general-warrant counterintelligence investigation into whether the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians in the 2016 campaign may not prove adequate—we should recall that in the earlier, heady days of the Russiagate weaponized lie, there was this suitably dismissive bit of snark charitably comparing Schiff’s quest for proof of this conspiracy theory with cryptozoologists hunting for the chimeric chupacabra.
In a perspicacious passage, reference was made to Werner Herzog’s “Incident at Loch Ness” where, desperately hoping the creature proves real, a character denounces the skeptics: “Show me one piece of evidence that proves this thing does not exist. They’re saying, ‘show us the evidence.’ I’m saying, ‘Show us the non-evidence.’”............To Read More.....
My Take - This tactic is universal among misfit activists, leftists, and scare mongers. It's a logical fallacy called proving a negative. You can only prove what things or people do, not what they don't do. It's like asking a married person to prove they're not cheating on their spouse.
When it comes to pesticides they unendingly state: We don't know the long term effects! What's that mean? The effect one year later, five years later, ten years later, a hundred years later? Under that thinking no product could be produced. I could say peanut butter is the real cause for cancer and demand you prove it isn't.
Here Schiff is demanding is that Trump prove he didn't commit a crime. That can't be done, you can only prove someone committed a crime, not that they didn't commit a crime. And worse yet - what they're demanding to be proved wasn't a crime in the first place. Collusion isn't a crime.
No comments:
Post a Comment