Three days ago I called Rep. James Comer a big fat liar. Since then, we've been on the edge of our seats wondering if I was right. Did he, in fact, lie about the testimony of Kevin Morris in the Hunter Biden affair?
Of course he did. A transcript of Morris's testimony was released on Tuesday and Philip Bump read it so I don't have to. Morris testified in detail about how he met Hunter; about the money he loaned him; and about the fact that he met Joe Biden only briefly on a couple of occasions:
Consider how Comer framed all of this. That the two met at a fundraiser and then Morris began paying Hunter Biden’s tax bills to insulate Joe Biden. That these were “loans” — implying they weren’t. That this generosity granted Morris dubious access to Joe Biden. None of this is justified by Morris’s testimony; Comer is instead simply trying to frame Morris’s testimony in negative terms.
He does so, presumably, because he knows that his close allies in right-wing media will not read the primary document and because he is signaling how the testimony should be contextualized.
It's just the usual lying about stuff that's in no way illegal, unethical, suspicious, or wrong in any way. Par for the course.
IMHO, lying about anything is unethical. Period. I can understand someone misunderstanding the situation, but outright lying is wrong in so many ways.
Newt Gingrich's Contract On America laid out the plan.
First, he is telling his audience what they want to hear, and that is his main purpose, because it gets him support (and votes).
Second, and more insidiously, as all the students (and victims) of authoritarianism (and totalitarianism) teach us, destroying the concept of truth is an important part of their gaining and maintaining power, and there is an awful lot of money -- and bandwidth -- presently devoted to helping them do so, either as allies or for their own purposes. In that, he is both a practitioner and a tool.
It's still an open question whether Americans are smart enough to get past this or are so stupid that they fall for it. I honestly don't know which is more likely ...
Half the world thinks that truth and facts are important, and the other half prefers drama, theater, and a good sounding story.
So when you hear someone complimenting you to your face, and then later overhear them telling someone else that you're dog shit, you know in which half of humanity they belong.
I really do think it's about 50:50. I don't know why this is, but it seems to be the case.
My mother was firmly in the "truth" camp, and her sister (my aunt) was firmly in the "exaggerate to tell a great story" camp. They basically hated each other.
I want to elaborate on this point a bit more.
What I'm describing is a difference in values. For some people, their word is their bond, and they try to be as accurate as possible about the things that are important to them. If they believe something, they believe it for their own personal reasons, and a thousand people shouting at them will not change their minds.
The other half of humanity sees one person going against the opinion of the crowd and immediately assumes that that one person is wrong, and they need to change what they say to align with the opinions of the particular group that they are in.
This half values the opinions of the group over their own opinions. Some might say that they don't actually have opinions of their own, but rather just parrot what the group is saying at any one time.
Which group do you think runs businesses effectively, and which group goes into politics?
The thing that I find interesting is that both types of people keep being genetically selected for.
Am I missing something? As far as I can see, one of two things must happen over the next few months:
- House Republicans either don't move to impeach the president, or they do and it fails to get a majority of votes.
OR
- House Republicans pass an impeachment resolution, and are made to look complete fools in the ensuing Senate trial when experienced Democratic trial attorney senators expose not only the absence of evidence, but the absence of anything resembling a high crime or misdemeanor.
Either way, Comer's political credibility will be shot. He'll be a kind of super-Trey Gowdy, butt of a thousand jokes. I think that will be great, but I wonder why he continues to rush towards the abyss.
"... wonder why he continues to rush towards the abyss."
Because Trump wants (and his supporters) want him to. When he is exposed as lier (more clearly than it is already), they will find to still "believe" him.
My guess is different. First, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that RepubliQans (Trump) threatened to ruin his family if he doesn't push the rotten regardless of having no evidence. Second, total failure won't cost Comer ANYTHING. He will be seen as a hero of the Reich if he does everything possible to smear the Biden family. It doesn't have to be successful - just rotten, nasty, and relentless.
What you're missing is that the majority of republican supporters won't hear any of those experienced democrtic prosecutors because they get 100% of their information from professional liars.
Is it wrong to sing "Comer's Mom Is a Big Fat Bitch"?
that's odd; comer never complained about the actual "loans" to clarence thomas