If the plan was to undermine Comey’s credibility, it already failed

james_comey_testimony_gi.jpg
James Comey appearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee, courtesy dailywire.com

Today, Comey gave an unwavering, consistent, believable account of his interactions with the president and why it gave him pause. All of his stories and accounts line up with what we already know, none of it contradicts, and the intelligence community has his memos to back them up.

Trump’s plan (or at least, the RNC’s plan) was to undermine Comey’s credibility today to save face. To label him a showboat, question his motives, and try to give the American people a reason to doubt his testimony. However, Trump and the people defending him couldn’t help but push that they feel “vindicated” by his account of telling Trump he was not under FBI investigation.

Trump’s outside lawyer, Mark Kasowitz, today released a statement in defense of Trump’s actions. The point of the statement was to try to remove Trump from the appearance of wrongdoing, and he does this by using much of Comey’s testimony as evidence. He cites Comey’s own account of what took place, the exact quotes and wording Comey used, and that Comey told the president he was not under investigation personally, in order to try to paint a narrative. However, Kasowitz claims Comey, while telling the truth (even down to the exact wording) on the rest of his testimony, was lying about the part where Trump asked him to end the Flynn investigation.

The problem with all of this is if you’re using Comey’s testimony to defend yourself, even down to the exact wording he used, then you are inherently reaffirming his credibility. You are telling the American people that Comey had consistently told the truth throughout the entirety of his testimony.  Oh, except for that one thing – probably the only thing that, if true, means that Trump is guilty of a crime. That’s the one and only thing that we are supposed to believe was a lie.

So who are we to believe? A man who has shown professionalism, integrity, nonpartisanship (even when we all thought his treatment of Clinton was partisan), consistency, and reliability – whose story has only been corroborated by the people attacking him? Or a president who consistently lies and contradicts himself, sometimes in the same sentence?

Try to imagine how this would hold up in court, let alone the court of public opinion.

Advertisements