Credible Is Not Necessarily Truthful

 As you read the whistleblower complaint HERE  and listen to carefully selected soundbites from today’s Intelligence Committee hearing with the National Intelligence Director, it may be useful to keep some definitions in mind.

“Credible” means something able to be believed or capable of persuading people that something did or will happen.  It is synonymous with the word “believable” which means something that is able to be believed.

“Truthful” has a very different definition from “credible.”  It means something which expresses the truth.

When a person files a complaint against another alleging some sort of injury or damages (e.g. someone alleges an injury because the person against whom the complaint is filed ran a red light), that complaint when filed with the court will be viewed as credible.  Then, facts will be investigated and the “credible” complaint may or may not be proven to be truthful (e.g., maybe the facts will show that the light was in fact green, or that there was no light, or that the light was not working, or that the person filing the complaint had no injury). 

Generally, those facts that prove something initially seen as credible to be truthful or not will be based on people with actual knowledge of the event and other direct evidence, and not on third party information.

When the whistleblower complaint was filed about the President’s phone call with the Ukraine, the allegations were labeled credible.  That is, they were able to be believed but they were not at that time proven to be truthful.    The Democrats have latched onto that word “credible” and keep repeating it over and over hoping to somehow create the impression that “credible” means that it is truthful and factually supportable.  That is simply not the case.

When you read the whistleblower complaint it should immediately strike you that the whistleblower has no direct knowledge of that about which he is blowing the whistle. While what he alleges is “credible” – able of being believed, it has not been proven to be truthful.  His sources are second and third hand and even the media.

We now have direct evidence – the actual transcript of the phone call. HERE   That proves that many of the “credible” allegations about the President’s phone call are not truthful.  There was no quid pro quo offer made; there was no attempt to interfere with the 2020 election.  The President asks if Ukraine could investigate a variety of things that involve Ukraine and possibly affected the United States, including interference in the 2016 election and the possibility that the son of a former Vice President may have received special favors.

One would think that the Democrats, so enamored of never-ending investigations, would laud the President for seeking to investigate these issues.  But, actually the Democrats only care about never-ending investigations that might allow them to remove the President from office – to overturn the will of the people because they don’t agree with the people’s choice of whom they voted for.

Reality and facts and truthfulness do not matter to the Democrats.  Credible complaints are enough for them in their war of hatred against the President.  We saw it in the Kavanaugh hearings.  We see it now.  Even with the actual transcript of the phone call in his hand, Chairman Schiff in his opening statement in the hearing portrayed the phone call as including things that were not said.  Challenged, he and other Democrats now take the position that we should all know that even though the words are not there, we should know that they were meant – there is apparently a secret code involved that only the Democrats understand.

So, we have another show trial underway in which the Democrats will hear and read and see that which is not there.  Anyone who makes allegations that are aimed against the President or his administration or his supporters will be seen as not only credible, but also as truthful, whether or not there are actually any facts to support those allegations.  They don’t care – they continue to grasp at anything in the hopes of ridding themselves of a president they do not like while at the same time destroying our country.

The Democrats' attacks on our President hurt both his administration and all future administrations.  Essentially, they are attacks on the office of president itself and as such an attack on our country.  Take for example the fact that we have now been made aware of the content of at least three conversations between President Trump and a foreign leader beginning with his conversation with the Mexican president at the very start of his term.  This must certainly have a chilling effect on both current and foreign leaders’ willingness to speak openly with the president.  Countries’ leaders need to be able to speak openly and freely with one another for the good of the entire world; the Democrats care more about destroying President Trump than they care about the good of this country or the world.

I also find it interesting that the Democrats seem to launch their new attacks or create a new media circus nearly every time the President goes abroad or is in some way engaged with foreign leaders.  This certainly is an attempt to weaken his position with any foreign negotiations or other foreign policy matters.  Their goal is not concern for our country but an intent to weaken and then destroy the President that they hate.

So, not only would the Democrats subvert the will of the electorate, they would subvert and destroy the office of president itself if not the entire executive branch.  Think of this in conjunction with their attacks upon the judiciary and thinly veiled threats against the Supreme Court to impeach or in other ways change the Court’s makeup if the Justices render opinions that the Democrats find too conservative.

There is a hashtag #DemocratsHateAmerica.  That title “Democrats Hate America”  is a credible statement.  Sadly, the actions of the Democrats provide us with evidence that this credible statement may also be truthful.