As promised .......... the door by the grandfather clock (eerie music plays). The trump monster tells all of his minions to leave the main chamber of the castle. The head monster prefers to work alone. The only one left with the monster is his prey, James Comey (more eerie music). But wait, the monster's bumbling minion boobs are just outside the main chamber in the ante-room lined up and anxious to know what is happening. They're drooling. They're rubbing their hands together, waiting for the kill, waiting for some fresh meat, waiting for victim Comey to become one of them. Vampire Priebus is a little too over anxious and opens the door to see what is going on, but the monster orders him to close the door, that the task won't take too much longer. Victim Comey sees the other minions behind vamp Prieb. What a strange scene.
Ladies and gentlemen, this sounds like a trailer for a 'B' movie thriller, eh? Nope, unfortunately, this is real life. Not fake. Yes, I've applied poetic license to have some fun, but the story line is allegedly factual, according to the testimony of James Comey in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
I have pointed out in previous posts that Comey's assertion that trump cleared the Oval Office, on February 14th, save for Comey, was certainly shady. But I failed to recognize that there is a rich mine of information that needs to be tapped by all of those that are investigating all of the various angles of all things trump. That mine contains the White House staff that was lined up behind Reince Priebus on the other side of that door, next to the grandfather clock, which opens into the Oval Office.
Each one of those people, each one of them with no exceptions, must be identified. After a complete list is known, they each need to be interviewed and/or testify under oath. What I want answers to, are the following questions:
- Why were they waiting outside of that door, along with Reince Priebus?
- Could they hear what was being said in the Oval Office between trump and Comey?
- If they could hear, then what did they hear?
- Prior to being asked to leave the Oval Office, did they know that they were going to be asked to leave?
- Did they know why Comey was asked to stay?
- Where they "asked" to leave the Oval office, or where they "directed" to leave the Oval Office
- Was James Comey "asked" to stay, or was he "directed" to stay
- If, in either case, it was a request and not a directive, did they believe they had an option or did they believe that even though it was a request, that they had to comply. In other words, if it was a request, did they believe they had the option to stay? And if Comey was "asked" to stay, did they believe that he had the option of not staying?
Please note that these last three questions are in direct response to Idaho's Senator Risch's line of questioning in reference to the word "hope". If these people were "asked" to leave, or if Comey was "asked" to stay, did these people believe the request was just that, a request, that left them with options, or did they believe it was a directive? If they believed that they had been directed to leave or that Comey had been directed to stay, even though it was a request, then it follows that when trump said the word "hope" to Comey, that what trump was saying could easily be seen as a directive as well. I think the line of questioning would need to be as follows:
- Did trump ask you to leave the Oval Office?
- Yes (for the sake of this presentation I'll assume that 'yes' will be the answer)
- So, trump asked you to leave the office?
- Yes
- When trump asked you to leave the Oval office, did you think that you had the option to stay?
- No
- Then even though you were asked to leave the Oval Office, you took it as a directive. (note - this is a statement, not a question, this is the only conclusion that can be drawn from the above questions and answers and therefore no other questions need to be asked to establish this point)
Upon writing this post, it occurs to me that these questions should not be asked in an open session of any sort. If they were to be asked of one of these people in an open session, then the remaining interviewees would know what questions they would be asked, which makes the possibility of lying more probable. Asking these questions in a private session would not guarantee that those that come after the first person interviewed would not have been tipped off ahead of time. A way to mitigate that concern would be to have all staffers that were outside of that door, report to the interview venue at the same time and be interviewed one at a time, one right after the other and each released through a different exit so they would have no contact with those remaining to be interviewed. A request to not use cell phones would need to be made of those in the waiting room. Someone would need to be in the room with those waiting to be interviewed and if they did use their cell phones, then those cell phones would need to be subpoenaed for examination.
It's a lot to coordinate, but these are unprecedented and extraordinary times in our country. Within the law, unprecedented and extraordinary steps need to be taken to determine the truth.
p.s. - Check out the Off The Cuff podcast tonight:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCaT5D55DKts7p4QnuDJGeSA
No comments:
Post a Comment