But the real difference between the case of Obama and the case of Trig is not the level of evidence — there was never reason to doubt the basic facts in either case.
And, again: there is no reason to suspect that Palin faked the pregnancy, let alone evidence that it was a hoax.
Sarah Palin, we’d be happy to see and publish your medical records. But the point of our package is that Palin simply doesn’t need to do this — there is no credible evidence to suggest that anyone other than Sarah Palin is the mother of Trig.
Fortunately, not everybody is fooled so easily by Sarah Palin. Prof. Brad Scharlott, whose research paper started the recent public discussion, has already given several interviews, and yesterday he gave an interview which in my view is his best one yet: He was a guest on the Peter Collins Show and had a long and detailed conversation with Peter B. Collins, who is a highly intelligent, experienced and courageous radio talk show host. Peter B. Collins has not been fooled by Sarah Palin, as it’s apparent that he is highly sceptical with regard to Sarah Palin’s pregnancy story.
The fact is that Trig Trutherism, like Birtherism, and also classic 9/11 Trutherism, are different offshoots of the same conspiratorial tradition, where you begin with a zany premise and work backwards, selecting “evidence” that can be shoehorned into your premise, while omitting or ignoring the details that shoot it down. Pretty soon, you’re attempting to draw spectral meaning from photographs you didn’t take and pondering the significance of the pilot episodes of “X-Files” spin-offs.
How long should anyone tolerate this astral projection? Let it cease forever, with the publication of Justin Elliott and Steve Kornacki’s multipart takedown of the entire mythos — which shows great restraint in that it’s not all titled, “Where’s Your Messiah Now, Andrew Sullivan?”
It’s a strange phenomenon that perfectly intelligent people are now willing to shut down any critical thought – just because they apparently believe that they have all the information, when in reality, they have nothing and even resort to lying about the evidence, like Julia O’Malley in the Anchorage Daily News.
It saddens me to no end that the liberal media has put their reputation on the line here, in a battle which is a lost cause, and which ultimately will come to haunt them.
Jason, hear me out:
I am not a professional journalist, but just an anonymous investigative blogger. If this is not good enough for you, than stop reading right there. I have been deeply involved in the investigation of Sarah Palin’s pregnancy with Trig since November 2008, together in a team of highly dedicated and capable researchers, which still exists today. Then, from autumn 2009 to January 2011, I was a blogger at Palingates, and afterwards founded Politicalgates, together with others.
Over time, we received some excellent bits of inside information from Alaska. It’s not true that nobody talked. People DID talk, but only in private, off the record, as many people are still afraid of Sarah Palin’s influence, with good reason. These sources were people from the “higher echelons of society.” We do know for example that a top-Republican AK politician said in a private, confidential conversation in January 2008 as a fact that Bristol was pregnant. In JANUARY 2008. There ARE people who do know the truth, and ultimately, they will talk. Huffpost, Salon etc. then will have a lot of explaining to do. It will be very embarrassing, and with diligent research, this outcome could have been avoided.
So I thought I should educate him a little bit and sent him the picture by Palin from March 26, 2008…
…but Jason Linkins apparently thinks that people who ask questions are a bit weird:
Has Salon ever aired the countless questions so many have had about this bizarre pregnancy? Or the persistent disbelief around it? About the wild ride? By not even acknowledging the natural skepticism of people toward these strange narratives, by arguing there is nothing fishy here at all without even going into what people have found fishy, is also a cop-out. It’s basically an insult to the many people who remain genuinely puzzled by all this.
This blog, moreover, has diligently offered up evidence on both sides. Salon will not publish anything that might counter their a priori position. I mean: how many politicians in history have claimed that they gave a political speech while experiencing contractions? If that isn’t de facto curious and remarkable enough to be worth asking about, what is? And yet no one – even those supportive of her – will go near that question.
There is also the matter of consistency. When a politician has publicly claimed she has produced a birth certificate and hasn’t, is it illegitimate for the press to ask why she simply lied about this? Can any sane person misremember such a thing? And if she’s claimed she has released it, what on earth is the ethical reason for not asking her to do it along with medical records? When she publicly derides skeptics in speech after speech, is it not the press’s duty to see if her derision has empirical validity? Or are we skeptics supposed to just sit back and be mocked by a pathological liar putting her own credibility against ours?
We all have cognitive biases. I have one – profound skepticism of anything Palin says – and may be judging evidence in ways that others wouldn’t. But so do Justin and Ben and Weigel who have an interest in dismissing the possibility that they may have missed uncovering the biggest hoax in American political history. That same cognitive bias question applies to Loy and Quinn. It does not mean they they may not be right. It just means that their cognitive bias is as real as my own.
It seems to me that when some simple, readily available medical records could end this excruciating debate in one easy swoop – and could have more than two years ago – it is professional negligence that the MSM won’t even ask for such proof, and devote far more energy to defending their own past than the facts at hand.