The name of this blog is Pink’s Politics. The name comes from my high school nick-name “Pink” which was based on my then last name. That is the only significance of the word “pink” here and anyone who attempts to add further or political meaning to it is just plain wrong.

Monday, October 30, 2017

Why I’m Not Writing About Today’s Indictments

Plenty of people will be busy putting their spin on the Manafort indictment.  Unlike those involved in the investigation who are under an obligation of secrecy but leak anyway, I have no obligation to keep quiet.  Yet, I see no point in rehashing the facts because people will read, misread, omit, distort, or whatever as they choose in order to use the current developments to support their own narrative. 

So, this will be very short, with just a few comments/questions:
 1.   I thought that the “investigation” was a hunt to find collusion between Trump and the Russians that affected the 2016 election.  If so, why is the indictment for alleged crimes committed at the latest in 2015 and before?
 2.  Why did Mueller suddenly ramp up and indict when the news was coming out of his possible involvement in the Clinton uranium deal (possible scandal) and his connection with Comey and the FBI and its use of the DNC ordered & paid for dossier on Trump (possible connection with Russia to affect election!)?
 3.  If Mueller’s investigation has this broad latitude to go hunting far beyond and outside of the 2016 election, why is he not investigating the many questionable actions that occurred during the Obama administration or at the hand of Obama’s some or one-time affiliates?
 4.  How can the left possibly read today’s news to justify headlines such at: “Information proves Trump campaign tried to collude with Russia”?
 5.  Why do the democrats continue to insist upon creating a narrative in which Trump is not a legitimate president?
 6.  How long and with what power will this “investigation” continue?

The far broader question can be simply stated:  Why do people jump to conclusions without examining or understanding the facts, or asking necessary questions?  Or, put another way:  Why do people insist that their preferred narrative is fact, whether or not facts can or do indeed support it?  Why cannot people be honest with themselves and others and admit that things are not always the way they wish them to be, but that simply wishing them to be so does not make them so, nor does it justify recreating factual reality in order to support their own narrative?

Perhaps rather than gloating at how today’s (or any day’s) news supports one’s preferred narrative we would all be better suited by stepping back and taking a breath and understanding what the facts really say and what reality really is.



No comments:

Post a Comment