How To Prove Someone's a Witch
America is on trial for its life. On one side are the democrats and their many supporters, which includes most of the media, public education, K thru 12, and the majority of universities. On the other side are the republicans, plus Fox News. In spite of this, the republicans have won The House, The Senate, The presidency, most of the courts, and the bulk of governorships around the country. In other words, if you watch and read the press everywhere, except Fox News, the message is the same; get Trump. Attack Trump, everything he says, parse his words for meaning, infer from what isn’t said, what might be, and then call it news. The justification comes from members of the media repeating, then repeating again, the same talking points, like prosecutors in a court of law using a list of scripted accusations and theories. Calling it an echo chamber doesn’t do it justice. In a court of law, however, an accusation made from an unnamed source is inadmissible. Here’s why. To clarify I’ve written a short play.
prosecutor – I heard you were a witch. Do you deny this?
defendant - Yes.
prosecutor – I’d expect a witch to say something like that.
defendant – What evidence do you have to support your claim that I’m a witch?
prosecutor – I have an unnamed source that claims to have a picture of you dressed as a witch. Plus, you own a broom. As if that weren’t enough, everyone I know thinks you’re a witch. Need I say more?
defendant – Have you ever considered that maybe, just maybe, there are lots of people that you don’t know, who might disagree? Furthermore, if I can’t cross examine your witness, their statement is inadmissible in a court of law, therefore, you have no evidence.
prosecutor – Yes, well, we’re trying to change that law, even as we speak. But only for this one trial. And, if I don’t know the people you’re talking about, who you allege might—in some far off universe—disagree with me, how would I know what they think? Thus you’re a witch!
At that point the major media nod in agreement, “Clearly this man is a witch. If not, how do we explain our inability to manipulate Americans into agreeing with us? “Witchcraft!” That must be the answer.” This then is followed by questions, not answers, because questions can also be answers, when the only evidence you have is more questions. If not, you must be a witch.
The End
Claude Hopper
prosecutor – I heard you were a witch. Do you deny this?
defendant - Yes.
prosecutor – I’d expect a witch to say something like that.
defendant – What evidence do you have to support your claim that I’m a witch?
prosecutor – I have an unnamed source that claims to have a picture of you dressed as a witch. Plus, you own a broom. As if that weren’t enough, everyone I know thinks you’re a witch. Need I say more?
defendant – Have you ever considered that maybe, just maybe, there are lots of people that you don’t know, who might disagree? Furthermore, if I can’t cross examine your witness, their statement is inadmissible in a court of law, therefore, you have no evidence.
prosecutor – Yes, well, we’re trying to change that law, even as we speak. But only for this one trial. And, if I don’t know the people you’re talking about, who you allege might—in some far off universe—disagree with me, how would I know what they think? Thus you’re a witch!
At that point the major media nod in agreement, “Clearly this man is a witch. If not, how do we explain our inability to manipulate Americans into agreeing with us? “Witchcraft!” That must be the answer.” This then is followed by questions, not answers, because questions can also be answers, when the only evidence you have is more questions. If not, you must be a witch.
The End
Claude Hopper