If Trump lied about 9/11 celebrations in NJ, why did WaPo report in 2001 that it happened?

Hat tips here to Allahpundit and John Hindraker. You've probably heard today some variation the idea that "fact checkers are shredding Donald Trump's story" about having seen people in New Jersey celebrating 9/11. This is one of these stories that liberals claim has been "debunked" because a conservative says it happened and they can't independently confirm it.

It must be a lie! Or, maybe, possibly, these liberal "fact checkers" are just not very good at their jobs. Powerline Blog's Hindraker noted that after the dinosaur media announced their inability to confirm Trump's tale, he thought he'd give it a go:

So NPR, the New York Times and the Associated Press searched contemporaneous news accounts and could find no evidence of Muslim-Americans cheering in Jersey City. That's odd. Because it took me less than two minutes to find this story from the Washington Post dated September 18, 2001 . . .

If you want to read the entire Post story, you can do so here. You can quibble if you want with the details of Trump's recollection - whether there were really "thousands" or a much smaller number, but as Rob pointed out earlier when we were talking instead of working, if that's what your quibble comes down to, you haven't exactly caught Trump in the yuuuuuuuge lie that the media's headlines would imply.

---

And boy are they going to town with it, using some of the most twisted "fact checking" logic you've ever heard. Consider this from Business Insider (emphasis mine):

Despite Trump's insistence that he saw such celebrations, political fact-checkers across the board have found little to no evidence of any public celebrations after the attacks. PolitiFact noted that there were several media reports of police inquiries into individuals who were suspected of celebrating the attacks in Jersey City and nearby Paterson, but there is no evidence that these investigations revealed any actual celebrations or resulted in any convictions. "This defies basic logic," PolitiFact's Lauren Carroll wrote in a "Pants on Fire" ruling. "If thousands and thousands of people were celebrating the 9/11 attacks on American soil, many people beyond Trump would remember it," Carroll continued. "And in the 21st century, there would be video or visual evidence."

So let me see if I have this straight. Trump says he saw celebrations. PolitiFact acknowledges there were police reports to that effect, but insists that because the existence of 14-year-old police reports don't constitute incontrovertible proof the celebrations happened, the negative is proven and Trump is a liar. And this is the same person who is lecturing us about "basic logic"? Basic logic says you can't prove a negative, especially by dismissing potential corroborating evidence of the positive because, according to your "ruling," it's not enough for you. I don't know if there were celebrations or not, but the media not wanting to believe it doesn't prove it didn't happen. And just because a bunch of self-important journalists can't find reports of it doesn't mean it didn't happen. It might just mean they were as determined to ignore it then as they are to cover it up now. You can think Donald Trump is a liar if you want, but if your sole reason for thinking it is that the media say so, I'd look around for another source if I were you.