So, picking up from the post from yesterday, I engaged a Facebook Friend on the Nunes Memo. He's virulently anti-Obama, and clearly has a complicated relationship with Trump. He prefaces his praise of Cheeto Benito with things like, "Say what you will about him.." or "For all the concerns about him..."
Anyway, we had a mostly civil exchange, as those things go. Some of his other friends in the thread...not so much.
What was striking about his position was the same thing that was striking about the Nunes Memo: Assertions without evidence.
Years ago, when we looked at the History Department's writing curriculum, the main thing we wanted to get across to students was that if you make an assertion, you have to have evidence to back it up. You can't just say that "Obummer is the corruptest president EVAH." Back it up. What's your evidence?
If it turns out your evidence is a Breitbart story and an op-ed from the WSJ...is that really evidence or just a concurring assertion?
The gist of the Nunes Memo is that Carter Page's civil rights were violated by a run amok cabal or anti-Trump people at the FBI. The problem is that there is no evidence to support this beyond the fact that this story is anti-Trump. Because it is anti-Trump, it must be the motivations of the people pursuing it that make it anti-Trump.
How do you reconcile the fact that the FBI is out of control with Michael Flynn's guilty plea? George Papadapoulos' guilty plea? The grand jury indictments of Paul Manafort and Richard Gates? How do you reconcile the "witch hunt" angle with Trump's on-air admission to Lester Holt that he is obstructing the Russia investigation? How do you reconcile any of this?
You close yourself off to competing facts. Opinions...OK, I'm not sure I need to read any more Ross Douthat. But look at the fact.
Please. The future of our Republic depends on it.
No comments:
Post a Comment