Kellyanne and alternate facts
Kellyanne Conway

Comey’s Testimony: A Public Unmasking.

FBI Director
Comey under oath

Unless you are living under a rock, you are aware that on June 8th, Former FBI Director James Comey, testified in a Senate hearing. Coverage of this testimony was massive and many Americans watched it live, providing an opportunity for America. This was not an opportunity for justice, or information, but rather an opportunity for a public Unmasking.

I do not mean “unmasking” in the sense of the public learning the identity of some previously unknown source, or anything like that. I am talking about how, in this day of hyper partisanship, Americans were going to be able to watch a highly publicized event and then sit back and observe how the coverage of this event matches up to the reality they witnessed.

There will be a lot of subjective coverage complete with spin. The Right will do its best to spin the coverage as a victory for the Republicans. The Left will be out claiming victory for the Democrats, which is to be expected. The media on the other hand that is different.

The media and “alternative facts”.

I watched much of the Senate hearing live, and then I took the time to click around to watch analysis by Fox, OAN, CNN, and MSNBC. I am a President Trump supporter and lean Right in my political beliefs. I was not surprised to find that my take of the testimony of James Comey lined up more with the take of Fox and OAN. In comparing the 4 networks, you would have thought there were 2 completely different hearings. In one hearing, on Fox and OAN, President Trump won the day and Comey, the Democrats, and the Left leaning media took it on the chin. In the other hearing, on CNN and MSNBC, the day was a disastrous one for the President. Here was the first unmasking, there are 2 sides to the news. All of you who laughed when Kellyanne Conway spoke about “alternative facts” owe Kellyanne an apology.

June 8th was a day when news networks put “alternative facts on display for all to see. Now, it may take some time for all this to shake out and we see which news outlets had the most accurate coverage but there was 1 issue that was covered, which placed all those networks who analysed the hearings, into a corner. Obstruction of justice.

Obstruction of Justice

Obstruction of justice was one of the many topics covered in Senate hearings. Was President Obama guilty of obstruction during his meetings with James Comey? “Obstruction of Justice” is a legal phrase, and if a law is written properly, there should not be a lot of room for opposite interpretations of this term.

According to Cornell Law School “Obstruction of justice” is;

Obstruction of justice is defined in the omnibus clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1503, which provides that “whoever . . . . corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be (guilty of an offense).” Persons are charged under this statute based on allegations that a defendant intended to intefere with an official proceeding, by doing things such as destroying evidence, or intefering with the duties of jurors or court officers.

A person obstructs justice when they have a specific intent to obstruct or interfere with a judicial proceeding. For a person to be convicted of obstructing justice, they must not only have the specific intent to obstruct the proceeding, but the person must know (1) that a proceeding was actually pending at the time; and (2) there must be a nexus between the defendant’s endeavor to obstruct justice and the proceeding, and the defendant must have knowledge of this nexus.

§ 1503 applies only to federal judicial proceedings. Under § 1505, however, a defendant can be convicted of obstruction of justice by obstructing a pending proceeding before Congress or a federal agency. A pending proceeding could include an informal investigation by an executive agency.

All the networks had legal “experts” giving us their analysis of whether or not President Trump was guilty of obstruction based on the Comey testimony. Here is a couple of snippets of that analysis to give you an idea of how things were unfolding in our independent and unbiased media.

Main Stream Media
Media Bias


CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin on CNN’s Newsroom. “If that isn’t obstruction of justice, I don’t know what is.”


Gregg Jarrett: Comey exonerates Trump – so much for obstruction

You get the idea. 2 legal “experts” 2 completely opposite verdicts. This is wear our unmasking comes in. In my opinion, 1 of these “experts” is correct, the other has been paid to lie to the public in order to push the agenda their network. The liar should be unmasked over the next couple of weeks. Either we will see talk of President Trump being guilty of obstruction quiet down or we will see it heat up and then we will have evidence of which side has been lying to us. It is not just the media, you have politicians taking opposite sides as well. For example, Mike Huckabee has gone on the record with the opinion that Trump has been exonerated. Nancy Pelosi has gone on record as saying how President Trump has shown a track record of obstructing. Every fair and honest American will have to own up to the fact of whether they have been duped by their side or not.

For the record, my money has been on President Trump, Fox, and OAN news. I fell confident that I have been on “the right side of history”, but it is possible I might have to eat some crow on this. I already wrote a misguided article in regards to James Comey, a humbling experience.

James Comey’s testimony could do a lot to bring reasonable Americans together, while at the same time pushing those on the fringes farther out.