Dear Editor:

Once again, Pat Wemstrom shows herself more adept at raising questions than answering them. (“Several sources, media verify Atlantic article,” (Sept. 30-Oct. 1 MDTJ).

"Parts of the story have been verified...." Really? Which parts? What evidence was produced to verify it? Without knowing who these supposed witnesses are, how can anyone judge their credibility, motives or veracity?

When some 17 named witnesses, by some accounts, deny a yarn spun by four anonymous alleged sources, it begs credulity to assert that the 17 were either in the men's room or President Trump's back pocket while the Anonymous Four were somehow channeling the gods' truth.

Given the nature of Democrats' previous attacks on the president and their proud sources, claiming that the anonymity of the four authors of this claim was possibly motivated by fear of retaliation seems dubious at best.

Referring to the far-left Atlantic as "a highly-respected magazine" may be true for lefty Democrats, but partisan respect does not equal objectivity or even credibility. If the Atlantic ever published a story favorable to Donald Trump, that would be real news. Such bias suggests that any efforts to verify the story were perfunctory at best.

Given the history of Democrat disinformation stretching from the debunked Trump dossier and Russian collusion hoax to this latest concoction, it would be irresponsible not to characterize such inventions as lies of the day. Pat Wemstrom should have been smart enough not to get suckered into believing this tall tale.

David Hanson

Savanna