The Atlantic's recent article accusing President Trump of disparaging fallen war heroes is just predictable (and in fact predicted) pre-election tripe.
And here is another prediction: there will be several more "bombshells" just like this before Nov. 3rd, all from the "usual suspects" in the mainstream media. And, by "just like this", I mean:
- From profoundly anti Trump sources: The Atlantic is obviously such a source. This is trivially easy to prove. Go to https://www.theatlantic.com and using their own page search function, search just "Trump". I can't claim to have read every article containing the over 200,000 hits, but I read through several pages of article titles. There is not a single title among them that isn't obviously and in some cases wildly, even slanderously, negative toward Trump.
- Containing not one verifiable fact: The article's numerous claims and quotes are all unsourced. All of them. Not to mention unverified, as well as emphatically contradicted by people who can be proven to have been there, and who have gone on the record, unlike the Atlantic's sources.
- Citing vague and/or anonymous sources: The Atlantic's sources ranged from, "sources with knowledge of the president's views", at least allegedly and - of course - unverifiably, to "one of Kelly's friends", because knowing a former White House Chief of Staff makes one an unimpeachable source. [Inuendo intended.] And, according to the magazine itself, each of "These sources, and others quoted in this article, spoke on condition of anonymity". Surprise, Surprise.
- Containing trivial misrepresentations or lies: The Atlantic article, discussing why Trump was not at the ceremony, said "[the President] blamed rain for the last-minute decision, saying that 'the helicopter couldn't fly' and that the Secret Service wouldn't drive him there. Neither claim was true." That is technically correct - but I'd send a 10 year old to his room for trying to pass it off as "Truth". What IS true is that the helicopter pilot said he'd recommend against the chopper ride in that weather, and that the Secret Service said the weather made the 2 hour trip on bad roads & in a remote area more dangerous than they were comfortable with - recommending against the trip, but leaving it up to the President. (Such pre-adolescent, language based deception is very common in "fake news" articles.)
- Short lived: Widely touted in the mainstream media as a "bombshell", and all consuming in the news cycle for a couple of days.
- Quickly contradicted and/or disproven: Even one of his very vocal (at book length) critics, John Bolton, emphatically denied the claims as "...simply false..." Adding, "The main issue was whether or not weather conditions permitted the president to go", as has been proven by contemporaneous Secret Service documents. Here is John Bolton's interview on the matter with Shannon Bream. The claim has also been disputed in an interview with Mike Pompeo,
- Dropped from the news cycle without comment: This story will die quickly, and very quietly (if it hasn't already done so). No retractions or explanations will be made, and no contradictory opinions will be allowed on any of the media outlets who touted it so loudly a few days ago, despite the fact that such contradictions are widespread, easily available and just as news worthy as the original story.
- Old news: This event happened in November of 2018, roughly two years ago. This is not at all a "bombshell", but a precisely timed, election year, political hit job. It was covered at the time, by The Atlantic magazine, in their article, "Trump Fails His Rendezvous in France". That article was itself rabidly anti Trump, and also completely without factual basis other than that the President had not gone to the ceremony as originally planned. The bulk of the article is a poem written probably one hundred years ago that happens to contain a line which, when taken out of context, could be used to feign shame at the president.
The purpose of these articles is not to make accusations "stick"; there's no plan to use the incident as source material for legal action, congressional investigations, etc. It's just a matter of keeping the airwaves as full as possible with negative, horrible rhetoric before the election. It is propaganda, of exactly the same sort used to foment revolution and violent government overthrows in third world countries and banana republics... brought home to America for your consumption by the Democrat / media political machine.
Pay attention in the coming weeks. If there aren't a handful more pieces following the above template, I'll eat my "MAGA" hat. (Just kidding, of course. I live in California, where it would be unsafe for me to own a MAGA hat... particularly given the recent "mostly peaceful" protests...)