Last
Thursday James Comey testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee. That
happened, and we can all agree it happened. I wrote about it as it
was happening and then I reflected
on it.
I found few
took the same line as me in analyzing the behavior of Mr. Comey. I have to say
my analysis fits comfortably in to the narrative that the “Evil MSM” is
pushing: Comey said no one big bombshell but affirmed lots of negative
reporting about Trump and laid out a handful of other breadcrumbs of things to
come. While not mind blowing, the gathering storm from those clouds is becoming
obvious.
For this
story I thought it might be good to venture outside my ideological neighborhood
and see what everyone else might say. It was served to me before I even had the
chance, though. First WaPo did a Chyron analysis which was fascinating.
Second, several of my conservative friends on Facebook and Twitter jumped to
the party line. Some were even people who had appeared to be taking a break
from politics were stepping up to note the lack of a direct order language, and
to profess they had just tasted a “nothing burger.”
Rather than
suggest they go look up the definition of obstruction
of justice I kept my (electronic) mouth shut. I smugly thought they would
soon come around, I was wrong. As they fought in the feeds below their comments,
my smugness lost its edge. I could accuse them of lawyering up with the rest of
the administration, or I could explain what I perceived as the long game Comey
was playing. But it didn’t seem like it would matter.
What I am seeing is that everyone is being
totally earnest. All of my liberal friends see obstruction. All of my
conservative friends see a disgruntled employee who has a history of going it
alone and wanting to be at the center of things. Back on the left, Mr. Comey is
portrayed as a tone deaf, Boy Scout, one that says “lordy” instead of “shit.”
We all
watched the same hearing. We all are living in the same universe, I presume.
Are we alternating sticking our heads in the ground? Is this some sort of
political Rorschach test?
This is the
real thing about gas lighting, there is no way to prove it has been happening
or that it was done, barring an admission from the culprits. I have my beliefs,
and I have my education, and I know what I saw. Problem is, so does the other
half of the population.
There has
been plenty said about objective reality and political tribalism and
information siloes. But this is a
genuine test, we all saw him say he felt a pattern emerging where the
president tried to leverage him to stop an investigation. That, if all true,
would be obstruction of justice. Is there daylight? Absolutely. We still need
to 1) determine the veracity of his words, and 2) parse the meaning of the word
“hope.” If we want a particular result there is still plenty of room for
optimism, either way. And for you to believe that is still rational. But to say
your side has won is not rational at all.
For the
good of the republic, and frankly my mental state, as I have had to question
the objective reality around me, seen with my own eyes, let’s try to call this
one as it is, not as we see it.
----
As a complete afterthought, and in fairness, what Loretta
Lynch did to synchronize between Department of Justice and Clinton Campaign
language is sketchy, perhaps even worthy of further inquiries. But it changes
nothing in regards to other misdeeds. Nor, was it the biggest story. Same goes
for Mr. Comey being the source of the memos to the New York Times, if you
couldn’t work out that there were 4 people in the room during the loyalty pledge,
and it wasn’t President Trump, it was not the two Navy Stewards, so it had to
be James Comey, then you are not great at reading between the lines and should
refer to my piece on Comey’s behavior.
No comments:
Post a Comment