OK, maybe I’m being hyper-sensitive, but…
A couple of weeks ago, we posted the sad story of Maria Yovanovitch — who Trump “re-posted” (i.e. fired) from her position as ambassador to Ukraine — and “relegated her” to a teaching gig at Georgetown (at full government rank and pay).
Sensitive-me pointed out that when I got an offer to teach at Georgetown after 2+ decades in corporate and consulting jobs, I considered it an opportunity to change careers and pursue a life dream … I didn’t think that I was being relegated to to some junk heap job.
===============
Fast forward to yesterday…
===============
Congressman Adam Schiff released his report on “findings” from the Pelosi-approved impeachment “inquiry”.
The WSJ’s assessment of the report cuts to the chase:
Mr. Schiff’s report mentions no specific crime and is full of too many inferences and overbroad assertions to provide a convincing impeachment case.
Right on!
Schiff’s inquisition brought a parade of witnesses who drew inferences (i.e presumptions) based on what they heard from somebody who heard something from somebody who overheard something.
There’s a saying in analytics: The plural of anecdote is not data.
Here’s a relevant variant: The plural of hearsay is not evidence.
Its tough to prove anything based on water cooler gossip … that’s why it’s not allowable in real legal proceedings.
==============
OK, I agree with the WSJ conclusion, so why am I bent out of shape?
White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham immediately tore into the impeachment report:
“Chairman Schiff’s report reads like the ramblings of a basement blogger straining to prove something when there is evidence of nothing”
Geez, Stephanie … I agree with your conclusion but …
“Ramblings of a basement blogger”…
Wasn’t it bad enough that Yovanovitch dissed teaching at Georgetown?
Did you really have to pile on by dragging us “basement bloggers” into your critique?
==============
Follow on Twitter @KenHoma
#HomaFiles
The Homa Files 
Leave a comment