About once a month a contributor graces us with a letter from Salina, Kansas. His letters usually contain two kinds of statements: 1) unsupported negative characterizations of everything associated with the Democratic Party and 2) over-the-top, groundless praise for all things Trumpian. He always gets a pass.

For example, one letter gratuitously affirms the following with no explanation or proof: “One of the Democrats’ main goals is to destroy the Constitution, via enacting laws that weaken the document. They are the enemy of the people. And again: “The media has printed and praised all the lies and misinformation the Democratic leadership spewed.” “How so? What is the evidence for this assertion? What, who, where, and when?

In support of Donald Trump’s claim of innocence regarding his conviction on 32 felony counts related to illegal campaign financing and voter manipulation, the gentleman has written: “Regardless of what decision the jury came to, the judge retained the right to change their verdict, guaranteeing a guilty verdict.” Absolute nonsense. I cannot locate any legal authority or source that supports that unusual .preposterous claim.

The letter writer has also said that in that trial, “The Defense was not allowed to call expert witnesses.” Not true. The defense was allowed to call expert witnesses, but not one who like Bradley Smith, a former Federal Elections Commission (FEC) was called by the defense to interpret legal definitions restricted legally to judges only. Even FOX anchors and editors, including Trey Gowdy, Mark Levin, and Kerri Urhban, have rejected his cockeyed claim.

This writer sometimes ends his unwarranted disparagement of Democrats and unmerited adulation of Trump and his followers with these words “Just sayin” or “Just a thought.” According to the Oxford British Dictionary, the phrase “Just sayin'” is often used to soften the impact of previous comments and shield the speaker from any possible criticism or backlash; and the expression “just a thought” typically signifies that the speaker is presenting an idea that he has not thoroughly examined and does not expect to be taken seriously because he is unwilling to guarantee its accuracy and reliability.

I suggest the contributor adopt this moral principle of honest speech: “It is wrong always, everywhere and for everyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence (William Kingdom Clifford—1887). For the kind simplistic nonsense he usually peddles, I rely on local sources. And I’m not “just sayin.”

TIM MANNELLO

Williamsport

Submitted by email