Posted on 01/28/2020 7:23:50 AM PST by Kaslin
I’ve been hearing the word ‘debunked’ a lot lately on Capitol Hill.
To Debunk is roughly the opposite of ‘bunk,’ which according to an old dictionary I own (Webster's New Peerless Dictionary & Atlas, circa 1941) is slang for ‘misleading speech’ or 'humbug'. While covering the U.S. Senate one obviously hears his fair share of bunk on a daily basis – but only now does it's photo-negative counterpart arise to assume center stage in the dreary yet at times slapstick, the impeachment of President Trump.
‘Debunked’ is supposed to mean an idea is disproved, but I’ve noticed it’s lost much of its swagger and accuracy lately due to overuse and misapplication. These days it seems to mean denied, or even disputed. If anyone denies something they find objectionable, it’s been ‘debunked’. Sadly, this miss-definition seems to hold sway with many journalists and even members of Congress.
Impeachment Article-1 declares President Trump was motivated by personal, rather than national interest when last July he asked the President of Ukraine to investigate alleged corruption by former Vice President Joe Biden. House Democrats insist it’s ‘indisputable’ that Trump was abusing the power of his office 'for personal gain'. After all, Biden was also a political rival. Personal gain had to be the motive, they insist because the allegations against Biden had been (drum-roll-please) debunked!
Among those who don’t agree is Senator Ted Cruz [R], TX. He says the very fact that the inexperienced Hunter Biden was employed by a notoriously corrupt Ukrainian energy company amounts to prima facie evidence. The kind of proof based on obvious first impressions and assumed to be true until proven otherwise.
This means President Trump was simply following the ‘obvious inference’ when he assumed that the reason the younger Biden got his job with Burisma Holdings—complete with a $1,000,000/year salary — was because his father was the U.S. Vice President.
Yet according to the House impeachment managers and many in the press, even the possibility of Ukrainian misdeeds by the Bidens had been swiftly ‘debunked’. By what standard? A lengthy series of investigative articles by The New York Times? Congressional hearings? A Special Counsel? None of the above.
Biden denied them.
For many in the media, that’s been good enough. Article after article prefaces the allegations with ‘unproven’ or state there’s ‘no evidence’ that Biden was corrupt in his Ukraine dealings.
CNN’s Daniel Dale gushed over Biden’s own denials, observing...“the way he’s told the story, he hasn’t even hinted at the possibility there might be some wrongdoing.” Prescient Dale added, “everything he’s said about it is true as far as we know.” As far as we know!
Senator Lindsey Graham [R], SC says accepting Biden’s denial hardly means the suspicions are ‘debunked’. “By who?,” Graham asked as he chastised reporters this week at the Capitol:
“The fact is that nobody — particularly in your business –- has done much looking at what happened in Ukraine with Hunter Biden.”
Senator Graham is right that more reporting is overdue on the Biden allegations. They are not debunked nor does this ‘fact’ confirm the President’s political motivations ‘beyond dispute,’ as the House impeachment managers claim. Declaring a person guilty ought to be based on their misdeeds, not our misuse of language.
But then again, it’s good to remember that those unafraid to rewrite dictionaries often gain the upper hand in down and dirty debates.
Elaine: No, it’s not debunked, it’s totally bunk.
Jerry: Isn’t bunk bad? Like, that’s a lot of bunk.
George: No something is bunk and then you debunk it.
Jerry: What?
How do I even keep track of what’s be debunked or not?
Should I go to debunked.com? Maybe Debunked Depot.
The FCC should ban the MSM from using it.................
The Rats made their debunk bed, now they can lay in it.
I debunk every morning before sunrise, and then take a shower.
I call double bunk on this bed of lies.
Pam Bondi argues Biden corruption concerns are legitimate
Her argument and the facts she laid out alone should be sufficient to impanel a Grand Jury or a Special Counsel to look into Biden corruption.
Simply use the “Debunked Catchall Umbrella” — is it Democrat corruption? If yes, then DEBUNKED.
It’s as simple as that.
“which according to an old dictionary I own (Webster’s New Peerless Dictionary & Atlas, circa 1941) is slang for ‘misleading speech’ or ‘humbug’.”
It is a contraction of an earlier term “bunkum” which originally was “Buncombe”, after a long-winded politician from Buncombe County, North Carolina, who said in his speeches he was “speaking for Buncombe”.
You are correct. Dem foot soldiers in the field have been programmed to respond to any allegation of Dem wrongdoing by saying “oh, that has already been debunked”. At which point they resume their “Orange Man Bad” routine.
I always liked the word “bunkum.”
Interesting etymology. Thanks for adding that.
Exactly when did they debunk the Biden scandal? Or did they just deem it summarily debunked because it harms the narrative?
There is a long list of words that when uttered by a democRAT, they should immediately have their larynx crushed.
Patriotism
Integrity
Duty
Christian
Honor
Prayer
Morals
Courage
Decency
Intelligence
Common sense
Reasonable
Constitutional
Rights
Standards
Expectations
Responsibility
I could go on, but I think you get my point.
democRATs should be seen and NOT heard.
I’m sticking with “pettifogging”.
And hokum, another great word that has fallen out of usage.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.