Friedman illustrates Rush’s rule: for liberals, it’s not the evidence that matters; it’s the seriousness of the charge
One of Rush Limbaugh’s classic maxims is that when it comes to liberals’ demands for investigations, it’s not the nature of the evidence; it’s the seriousness of the charge that matters.
Thomas Friedman provided a perfect illustration of Rush’s rule on today’s Meet the Press. Discussing the notion that the Trump campaign might have colluded with the Russians regarding the 2016 election, Friedman said “I agree: there is no evidence, which is why we need a special prosecutor or an independent commission to get to the bottom of it.”
Readers will remember that Friedman fantasized about the US being “China for a day” so that we could “actually make decisions.” And in a subsequent New York Times column, Friedman wrote that the Chinese Communist, one-party autocracy is “led by a reasonably-enlightened group of people,” and has “great advantages.”
Now, there is absolutely no evidence, no evidence at all, that Thomas Friedman is plotting the overthrow of the American system in order to install a one-party, ChiCom-style autocracy. But applying the Friedman Rule, perhaps that’s precisely why we need to appoint a special prosecutor to look into the matter. 😉
DANIELLE PLETKA: The point is, was there somebody inside the Trump campaign who was working with them [the Russians], and, did the President know about that, and, were they successful? And I think on those latter two questions, we have no idea.
KIMBERLY STRASSEL: No evidence. There’s no evidence.
. . .
THOMAS FRIEDMAN: I agree: there is no evidence. Which is why we need a special prosecutor or an independent commission to get to the bottom of it.