In a Wall Street Journal editorial centered on Adam Schiff’s (D, CA) campaign of smear against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, the Editors concluded with this:
Ms Cheney keeps telling Republicans they ought to believe the committee’s findings, and much of that is compelling.
I have to ask.
What’s compelling about “findings” manufactured in the complete absence of cross-examination and of witnesses brought by the other side?
What’s compelling about “findings” wholly stripped of context?
What’s compelling about “findings” not determined objectively?