re: #454 HelloDare

I understood your point.

I found a web page that looks like the PDF you specify. A link to it is at the ABC News article. All in your post is true, but at the bottom, under “Organizing Committee (organizations listed for identification purposes only): ” is “Van Jones, national executive director, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights”

re: #472 SixDegrees

As I read Tapper’s report, he’s using existing documents, from problematic sources to make his case.

.
Both:

My points seem to be missed.

1. Van Jones is a Marxist and a self-admitted radical, who essentially hates America.. He has a history of association with fringe groups, and is likely to have a reasonable familiarity with their views. Jones’ beliefs on Trutherism are irrelevant; in the big picture, is Jones suitable for employment by the White House? I think “no”. That he was completely hoodwinked by any of the Truthers seems highly unlikely. But if he was, his history and the evidence provided so far put the onus of proof on him.

2. Do Truthers lie? They clearly bend twist, distort, omit, misinterpret and assume facts incorrectly; if this isn’t lying, it’s close enough. But it’s important to look at the subject: is Van Jones’ signature a forgery, a lie, or something done with Jones’ knowledge? Here’s a conspiracy: specifically, did Jones sign something knowing that his signature could then be included on something else, without his knowledge, thus giving him plausible deniability? This I view as a tossup, and it’s on Jones to make his case.

There seems to be an assumption that because we’re dealing with Truthers, simply dismissing what they say is fine, because it’s tainted. Courts handle evidence and testimony this way, but this doesn’t work well in real life.

Truther garbage about why the WTC buildings fell is easily dismissed, they’re using the “questions” of a Radio-Television-Film (IIRC) Dropout (HAHAHAHAHA) to try to prove a point, not making arguments based on the report of an experienced professional engineering firm. Actuate the handle on the porcelain device.

But listing a signature of someone with a history of Marxism, activism anti-Americanism, who apparently physically associated with them?

Proximity, motive and opportunity. Ok, I’ll listen. Make the case. In this case, it is Jones who needs to defend himself.