How this works…

Want to know how I find the stuff I do? Well, generally speaking, I hear something on NPR or I read an article.

Most of the time, I find inspiration from some potentially questionable source that isn’t considered mainstream (likely liberal or conservative clickbait title, questionable links hung off the page) or the story sends me off in a “that can’t be real” rant. I read and listen so you don’t have to.

Once I find my theme, I go looking for backup. Usually I find the original source of the material or a follow-up, or both.

That’s when I get the whole post together and link everything together. See below:

Original source: “Liberals Unite” (yeah, nothing biased about that, right?)

What? Why aren’t more people talking about this? I mean, vindication and stuff! What gives?

Oh, HEY! Newsweek. Kewl!

Ooh! A link to the letter? Awesome!

But WAIT! There’s more!

Yeah, Salon, but by now I’ve found four independent sources that all lead to the same conclusion: Republicans with an ax to grind go after Hillary Clinton on a trumped up charge (yeah, I went there), because they can’t find real evidence, and inventing it is so very, very easy. And profitable.

This is the best they can do. Think about it.

From the Salon article:

Gowdy’s implication – that Stevens either lacked access to Clinton or that Clinton prioritized her communications with Blumenthal – was flagrantly false, and Gowdy knows it was false. Stevens had access to Clinton through a variety of means and could have been in touch with her at a moment’s notice if he’d wanted. But Gowdy used the frequency of email communication – and only email communication – to give the impression that Blumenthal was in the loop while the ambassador was not.

And in the end, if that’s everything I can find, I call it a post and move on. Sometimes the posts just write themselves.

Leave a Reply