Tom Magazzu

Tom Magazzu - Editor

Trump-detractors/haters online and in the media have been telling us for over four years about what an unruly, unrefined, unprincipled, phony, lying, manipulating, philandering, deceptive, traitorous, racist, egotistical, megalomaniac Trump is. They loved him when he was a reality TV star. Now they count the minutes until he is out of the Oval Office.

Everything they can come up with now that has a shred of legitimacy - or not - has already been heard. Apparently, those stories and accusations are not salacious enough to slow Trump’s building momentum as the election approaches. Leave it to The Atlantic to publish a hit piece that lacked credibility from the outset. Since its founding in 1857 the monthly magazine has been politically bent while featuring some leading writers of their day.

The magazine has only endorsed three presidential candidates in its history, Abraham Lincoln, Lyndon Johnson, and Hillary Clinton. Since Hillary’s loss, it, like many other neutral, objective (pronounced left-leaning) publications have been anticipating and actively trying to facilitate Trump’s ouster.

The September issue came out just before the Labor Day weekend. It included a piece by Editor in Chief, Jeffery Goldberg, known for other unmeasured takes on reality.

The article claimed that four anonymous sources with first-hand knowledge heard President Trump reject a planned visit to the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery near Paris in 2018 when it was raining because he did not believe it important to honor American war dead, referring to them as ’suckers’ and ‘losers.’ And besides, he feared his hair would become disheveled in the rain.

Not even a single source for the story was willing to go on record. It’s a desperate smear by those aligned with an increasingly desperate Biden campaign that sees momentum changing.

As of my press time over 20 officials who were part of the trip have said the claims in the story simply aren’t true.

They dismissed the anonymous accounts as ‘simply false’, ‘despicable,’ ‘untrue’, and ‘BS,’ the latter coming in a tweet from a normally collected former press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Sanders later held a full press conference on the issue to elaborate on the fake story.

Former National Security Advisor and a former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, who is not exactly on good speaking terms with the President after his ouster, said The Atlantic story claiming the president called fallen soldiers losers is simply false.

Bolton’s recent book about his time in the White House blasted Trump as ignorant, incompetent, and willing to pander to dictators. There is plenty of animosity between them. However, Bolton reiterated on a Fox News interview, “I don’t know who told the author that, but that was false and I recount that in my book.”

Other noted denials came from Deputy White House Chief of Staff Zach Fuentes and retired Maj. Gen. William Matz, who was the Secretary of the American Battle Monuments Commission. Matz was in France and coordinated the events where the comments were allegedly made. He called The Atlantic story, “false and despicable.”

So, we have unnamed sources as the crux of a hit piece in a liberal pub released early on Labor Day weekend so no substantive responses can come out for several days. Pretty smart move by the political left, because it is not something that would be completely out of character for this president. However, a manufactured story is what we appear to have.

And that goes to another crucial point. Unnamed sources in politics and sports are getting out of hand. One who is speaking on the condition of anonymity because he or she is not willing to go on the record for fear they will burn bridges or say something they shouldn’t, is gutless. I’m always of the position that if someone doesn’t have the wherewithal to stand behind a claim, why even publish their comments? Pieces these days rely on far too many unnamed sources for substance.

If someone is speaking on the condition of anonymity because he or she is not authorized to speak on a certain topic or represent a position, why are they speaking on it?

When they are not authorized to speak on a certain topic and do so anyway under a shield of anonymity, then one could assume they are shady, underhanded, untrustworthy.

One or two shady sources in a piece with supported comments is one thing, but four? That is bottom feeding.