How about acting as if you are not a blind follower of a deeply flawed leader? The reason the Atlantic article has gained so much traction is that it rings true with what is already known. When Trump is finally out of office and the price of telling the truth is no longer so high all these people will come forward, will you still think it's a lie?How about giving us a verifiable witness????You are still defending Trump after everything he has done and said right out in the open. Doubtful there is any piece of verified information that you would accept or any action by him that would move you to withdraw your support.If you have one, post it....If we had tape of these statements coming out of his mouth you would still defend him.So you think they should hide their "witnesses", where no one can tell if they even exist????Admit it. Even if everyone came forward and publicly stated what they heard the president say about our troops you would call them liars and then work to destroy them. In the end Trumpbots would forgive dear leader for pissing on anything they supposedly treasure.If they have "proof", they need to have the "witnesses" come forward....Which there is no proof of, other than an article in the Atlantic (which refused to name their "sources"), and that FOX News called a total fabrication....Lol..This was proposal nothing more than a deflection from Trump calling our fallen soldiers losers.
Not to the journalists.
Otherwise, there is no evidence that they were anywhere near what Trump is being accused of (or any proof that they even exist).....
If you can't produce a witness to something, we have to assume that you don't have one....
Otherwise, you just have an allegation with no identifiable "witnesses"...
We don't know if they even exist, or if one of the drug-addled reporters at the Atlantic just made it up....
You don't have one, do you????
the article is a propaganda rag. The writers have lifted techniques which are prevalent in publications
found in STORMFRONT