Discussion»Statements»Rosie's Corner» WHY do you care who funded a report if the information therein is provably TRUE? It it's false it MATTERS. If it's true too? Because?
The information has already been proven FALSE. It claims President Trump's lawyer was in Prague, Czech Republic on a specific date. His lawyer has proven with his passport that he has NEVER been to Czech Republic and has witnesses as to being at a school with his child on that specfic date.
Using it to try to prove a negative asside, how does a passport prove that the the lawyer has never been to the Czech Republic? (And yes, I do believe the lawyer, after all, he's a lawye . . . oh, wait)
First, the Czech Republic is a part of the EU now. One can fly into any city in the EU, go through passport control which will visa-stamp the passport with that point-of-entry, and then connect to any other location within the EU without any further need to have the passport stamped. I've been to the Czech Republic three times and only have one Czech stamp with that one added before they entered the EU.
Most people that "globe-trot" have multiple passports. Don't want to be showing up in Iran or Cuba (or a lot of other places in the world) with a US passport.
I do put a LOT more credence in the witnesses that actually saw him at a different location. That I can take to the bank (unless those "witnesses" also hold JD's).
What is "provably true"? Or "provably false"? Which of us has the time or inclination to try and prove one way or the other? We simply decide based upon our own experience.
my2cents 