Since the violence in Berkeley and the other anti-Trump protests riots, is particularly emblematic of what's wrong with the left these days --(even if it's mostly by infiltrators, because there simply has not been any kind of real objection to it from the left)-- I figture this belongs here:
No, it makes it not true. It makes it fiction. It makes it fantasy. Just like the stories in Genesis 1,2&3 are fiction, fantasies.
But wait, there's more. It also could be that the simply misremembers an incident or that the cop was as ignorant as she was or the cop lied to her or the cop was tired of really stupid questions and so just mad up a story to get rid of her or that she has delusions.
But the story is still just innuendo and worthless of evidence of anything except the fact that she wrote it.
“Is there any earthly chance you could go on the record, at a future time, if we set careful ground rules?”
“Sorry, I can’t.”
And yet she published his comments anyway, along with the date, approximate time, the person's job, employer, that he was working, his precise location and his assigned work duty. Go journalistic ethics! Nobody will ever be able to identify him, should he be an actual real person.
If she lies to her sources, who knows how she'll treat her readers?
My first thought was that it's not likely anyone would go to the trouble to find out the man's identity, or would succeed at it in any case, but then I realized this is a crime we're talking about. She couldn't give away his identity but she wanted to give enough detail to establish credibility, and of course she would want to prove that Soros was committing such a crime, I would hope the information she gave would work to that end.
No, there are lots of people who have one or two crackpot opinions who aren't crackpots.
I think you misunderstand the expression. When there's a crack in the pot, the whole pot is cracked. It doesn't necessarily mean the pot is completely useless but you probably shouldn't trust it with anything valuable.
My first thought was that it's not likely anyone would go to the trouble to find out the man's identity
I'm pretty sure his boss would be interested in finding out who was sharing intel with reporters.
or would succeed at it in any case
I'm pretty sure his boss, especially being as he is in charge of POLICE would have a reasonable chance of succeeding.
but then I realized this is a crime we're talking about.
I would hope the information she gave would work to that end.
Apparently the police had 'intel' - what information did she give that would work towards proving a crime had been committed? She just repeated an allegation. Even if we believe her, the allegation isn't a criminal one, and even if it were - saying the police are aware of information doesn't prove the crime.
Yes I suppose if it did get out he'd be fired. But the information could be the wedge needed to bring Soros to prosecution. Not by itself of course, but a wedge, a beginning, perhaps forcing confessions, perhaps giving courage to others, bringing people out of the woodwork who know things but are afraid of telling them. TV interviews with the shadowed head.
And George Soros was still only born in August of 1930. He was still only two when Hitler was appointed Chancellor. Still only 14 when Hitler died. Hardly old enough to have collaborated with the anyone.
read the paragraph just above the one that starts the quote I gave
That was about Berkeley, I'm certainly not ignorant that property damage has occurred, that's the topic of this thread. The cop in question was talking about protesters in New York. That's like 3,000 miles apart. But let's suppose the cop's intel was such that it definitely included other areas. Is this it? Some people caused damage. Soros might have paid some people. No connection that ties the people causing damage to Soros paying them? No suggestion that Soros was actually requesting damage be caused to property?
I don't think this reporter's 'revelation' is suggestive Soros is involved in any crime. Even if he funded some protesters or protests, given most protesters are peaceful - the probability that he was funding peaceful protests is higher than the probability he was funding violent protests.