My Blog

My Blog

Reflectance on the abc Comey Interview

General StuffPosted by Nicole Mon, April 16, 2018 17:12:53
What I am about to tell you is of utmost importance. I'm going to take a step back, ... trying to present the matter, ... by calling it all a play. That would or could or might be your take-away if I were to put it as I originally meant to, which is to call it a "box" of narratives. The simple difference is that the term 'narratives' provides space for some of the perspectives actually being true and happen to be real matters to our/the US society.

If ever one of the entangled parties and/or entities comes forward - it is a narrative. If Comey says X about Trump, ... he's in it, as is Trump. We might call it the 'setup'. Well, ... Comey moving up and firstly discrediting Clinton just short to the Election was the first Comey thing in this story. And thats what it is. It all ties back to Comey. He started it - and in his Interview he gets to that as a matter between who, what and when, to put forward. Would he have waited the Republicans would have been pissed had she won, would he not, the Democrats would be pissed about having lost the Election.

So, that is now an event, ... a narrative that ties in certain individuals. Like I ... do here ... but I don't have a connection to that. Unless someone else claims that, and then I'm tied in by them. So, what is Clintons act in the play? She blames Bernie Sanders.

As the abc Interview however shows (I'm two thirds into part 2 right now) also Trump weighing in onto that. He as her opponent at the time would of course go to use that against her. That may not be important at this point, ... but as we know is the Interview also going to drag in "the Donald" - so, he inevitably becomes part of the narratives, is an actor and so has part to the play. No matter how loosely it all is connected right now. What matters at this point however is that happy, self-confident people stood up at Trump rallies to shout "Lock her Up" - while Trump led the narrative.
Trumps point of view wants to show that Clinton is Evil - calling her "the Establishment" - speaking of Corruption and that the System is Rigged. All Americans who would have secretly believed that might be receptive to that Narrative, and I think that is what we can see in some of these peoples faces. Now that is important as part of looking at what kind of person Trump is.

So, the story goes on ... Trump wins the Election ... and depending on how deeply you followed politics the next thing was either, ... no. Lets compare what happened next to a sequence of waves of different magnitudes. The first one we encountered were rumors of Russian meddling. That now calls Putin into the Box. He denies everything, doesn't wanna be a part of it, and as we hear later down the line, more and more Russian names pop up. Names we would have never heard about. Most people probably never heard of Comey, ... up until he got fired.

Then we hear about Obstruction of Justice. So allegedly did Comey get fired because he investigated the Russian meddling incident as Memos he had written would suggest.

In the Interview Comey goes to say that he spoke about this Russian meddling to Trump; And that Trump got very defensive about it by bringing up story's of how he had been accused in the past and of how that got proven wrong. That is what we now got to hear; And I would like to remind you that this is the "former" head of the FBI. I put that into quotation marks because Trumps decision to fire him is questionable/questioned at this point.

[Another Story Told: The "X-Files" Factor

I wondered about what was missing these days, ... and perhaps it is a presence of Mystery. The presence of shows that make us consciously question our reality, that momentarily put us into the shoes of wondering about what we believe in. Aside of gazing at the screen for evermore and more and more stunning Visual Effects and emotionally engaging Stories.

That however is just a perception. And I don't want to bother you too much with that kind of stuff here.

What I want to deepen at this stage is perhaps a little bit of that, "shilling for the FBI" and heating the pot in which Clinton sits a bit further. The most shocking revelation to me over the past year was Kyle Kulinsky's stance on Obama. That he was not at all generally positive about him. That Obama just as those before him has supported war in the middle-east.
Its one endless string of "shit", which goes way back to Bush - whichever - lets ... say, ... the Vietnam war and JFK. But Bush Jr. specifically in regards of the response to 9/11.

Politics 'for' war - fueled by reports of how crucial it would be for us to intervene here and there - a stance that now however more and more people grow tired of. Even if you felt it was right before, more and more people realize that it is not.

Or is it?

Well, that is a different story. And yet - the critical element here is trust. Distrust against Donald sheds a different Light on it. People nowadays would seem to expect Republicans to put money into war, a huge upset and yet nothing to change ever. Democrats on the other hand have the peoples trust. They can't bank into war but pretend they're doing good for the people while behind their backs the same shit keeps going on. The back and forth between Republican and Democrats doesn't seem to be anything more but waging between putting money into the military and calming the people about it ...

... .

We do need to come up with some conspiracy theory to debunk this. So ... Aliens ... huh? Wh... Ho... ... ??? I don't even ... I ... I don't ... I ... don't even ... ... what?

Here's the thing: There are story's of UFOs crashing everywhere. Every nation might have some piece of Alien equipment they studied for years, maybe centuries. And this changes nothing, ... except maybe that whom we might not see as a threat otherwise could be seen as a threat now. Its still the same story. "What are we doing?".
All governments now secretly have laser guns and UFOs and ... Nazis will come from the dark side of the moon to take over or what?


So is that Comeys Narrative however. He told Trump, Trump reacted strange, he took notes. Those notes essentially are just he-say she-say, ... whatever. There however is something in that puff of smoke that got him fired - and the investigators that picked up then were confronted with these memos that then suggested that this firing may have been obstruction of justice.

So, thats ... the first layer. We have a rough draft of the actors in play and their role in it. Now, lets take a closer look at the main actor. James Comey.

James Comey early on speaks a lot about the FBI and its responsibility to the US. The role he plays is that of a professional investigator as he here and there has the chance to showcase some depth of his analytical perception.

We need to note however that his narrative emerges as part of a few incidents that arouse public attention. So, first there is Comey jabbing against Clinton - and Democrats ask "why?". Then we have pictures of Donald welcoming Comey "on board" - which to me really sits and feels like the act of a Mafia Boss in some shady Hollywood thriller. After all, Comey would seem to have helped him win, why not welcome him on board?

The next thing on my list is Donald saying that he never asked Loyalty from Comey. And from what Comey is telling, that is the Truth. Right? Comey said that he was sure to remember correctly, ... and thus said that Trump said: 'I need Loyalty'. (I hope I got that down correctly).

And here it somehow ends. I mean, thats it. Nobody did anything and Comey is standing there alone like a nutjob.
Comey however thinks that Trump is smart above average and morally unfit to be President of the United States.


End of the story.
Well, not really. Throwing in: Michael Flynn. The narrative goes on as we must realize that Flynn resigned because of ties to the Russian government. And that ... happened. And note: I wrote: 'he resigned' and not 'he had to resign' because ultimately ... resigning comes prior to being fired. Comey didn't resign. He was resigned. So, thats ... funny for ... getting fired.

So Flynn resigned - and that according to Comey and what so went around the News at that time, in context of Comey investigating something regarding Russian meddling with the elections.

The thing for me is that I kindof 'blanksed out' whenever there was something about Flynn. I didn't understand his role. I tried to find Videos to explain this role to me, but I couldn't completely wrap my head around it and that is mostly because of the uncertainty regarding this whole Russia thing.

From Trumps perspective, ... it must have made sense to fire Comey. Or as he had put it himself this whole Russia story was a made up thing and so there is no obstruction of justice going on. So the narrative of Trump is that Comey started to act up strange, being a wild-card that made it difficult for him and his team to work - and while its all Bullshit anyway he just had to let him go.

But why did Flynn resign then?

Ties to Russia. Now, from Trumps perspective - Flynn would appear as a traitor who ... err.. Conflict. "Something doesn't add up".
So, here a few thoughts:

- Why are ties to Russia so bad? Trump was open about it, ... that it would be good of the USA and Russia got along.
- Things were perfectly going fine, ... judging from the images that show Flynn close to Putin there is some line of peace there going on.

Now, somehow this whole Russia thing is however out there. From how I've heard it were there numerous reports about various intelligence agencies having evidence that proves Russian meddling in the election. On the Republican side there is a heavy denial unto that. And yea, where is that evidence? Why does it not ... weigh up? Wouldn't it be easy to just put it forth and 'bam' ... "President found guilty of manipulating the Elections"?

So, lets assume the evidence of the Russian meddling isn't clear. There is evidence of it, but it isn't clear who did it. Comey then goes to tell Trump about it, ... and according to Comey Trump didn't inquire about the substance of that evidence - backing up into defense and mild threats instead. What so - might raise a red flag. The alternative - looking at it neutrally - so for context - would have been that the Democrats were actually those colluding with Russia but failed. That however puts the value of the evidence into a different spotlight.

So, again: The FBI found evidence for Russian meddling to some capacity. That doesn't mean anything. They did it, its about national security now. Would Trump have been innocent, so the line of reasoning at that point, wouldn't he have been interested in finding out more about it, to ... eventually get to "Lock her up"?

We could say ... "naaah" ... because ... Trump is way too narcissistic and egotistical and all that - he's concerned of his own success there, ... "basking in the Sunlight" ... perceiving this news as an indirect threat.

Now, whats Flynns role in that narrative?

Flynn was part of Trumps campaign, involved into the whole "Lock her up" thing according to this ...

MSNBC broadcast. After the election and prior to the inauguration he had made phone-calls with the Russian US Ambassador, about which he had lied to the FBI. Now has Flynn resigned from being 'National Security Advisor', while pledging cooperation with Mueller-Russia investigation. And that also happens to be his narrative.

To put this episode into perspective ... we've sortof been left with a cliffhanger there ... or a screwed up Episode ... well, my perspective, ... there is this thing called 'Loyalty'. So, somehow someone finds evidence for Russian meddling in the US election, ... Flynn as National Security Advisor would be notified about that - and now the question is: What about those phone-calls and why did he lie about them? That kindof defines how the episode goes. According to Comey, ... Flynn is a good guy. And due to given doubts he chose to resign because he couldn't do his job without Bias anymore.

I had to rewind certain parts multiple times to get this into my head.

So, the story goes on ... that "unknown" now claims that Flynn had been urged to make those calls by amongst others Trumps senior adviser. But ... wh... ... wh... I ... huh?

So, Flynn calls Russia about whatever - lies about it to the FBI, ... because ... ???
And of course Trump didn't do it. Trump didn't do anything. Of course.

So, ... the narrative here would be that he got urged into calling Russia but then also advised to keep it a secret. So ... but Trump didn't order him to. Why did Trump not say: I ordered him to and told him to keep it a secret! ???
That would have solved a lot of problems!
If this was ever asked of him.

Well, "of course not" - but then, why did he lie? So, sure - Donalds narrative would be that Flynn was a hack.

SO, for now: At best for Trump: Would the Democrats be guilty (or Putin was trolling) - and Trump was just stumbling over his own incompetence the whole time. And the alternative: he's guilty AF!

So, telling Flynn to keep things a secret ... thats a suspicion on my part. Lets examine that a bit further.

We don't know much. We know that Flynn had publicly met with Putin, that so according to this:

And this is one year prior to the previous one. So, at around the time where those phone-calls were made.
So, quick recap?

Trumps presidency begins, ... and eventually rumors of Russian meddling start floating around. Now, strangely enough - I have a hard time recollecting ... so, May 2017, four month into Trumps presidency, this:

happened. And we start to see a pattern: There is always someone to take the blame for Trump. He just didn't do it. Anything. Anything that is in whatever way questioning Trumps purest righteousness ... he just didn't do. So, ... he's just a poor guy surrounded by bad people that do crazy stuff to dirty his name.

So, mabye "They Live", and come crawling out of some catacombs beneath the White House at night and take over all the Government officials - practically holding a gun to Trumps face forcing him to do their bidding.


I feel there is some more backtracking we need to do. Timeline:

Flynn Resigns February 2017.
Comey fired May 2017.
Flynn pleas guilty Nov/December 2017


I mean, I got this a little confused. So, back to Comey, Flynn and Trump.

According to Comey, Trump asked Comey to let go of Flynn. So, Flynn was under investigation ... regarding this Russia thing ... and reason for that may have been those lies regarding those phone calls as it would certainly need be the case in a general investigation concerning that incident, of that Russia meddling.

So, this now is 1 month prior to Flynn pleading guilty.

The thing is that this now shatters the image previously established a bit.
And once you've been compelled to believe it, you now have work to do in order to unbelieve it.

However. Lets look at this again.

Flynn resigns after being under investigation. Then Comey is being fired - and from May to November we have 6 more month to go. And apparently now Flynn had to be 'forced' into cooperating. The "glitch" here for me was that I put beginning and end together, which however made sense in regards to the narratives. So, Comeys "he's a good guy" point of view that was.

We don't know what went on behind the scenes. And ... in the meantime ... I stand where I stood before.
In the end, Trump will have some lackey to take the blame, ... and looking at it - the only way to take out Trump, ... is - we can quote Flynn on that: "We decide that we want to win, take all our resources and devise a "Strategy" to employ them".

Because even if he were guilty, by now all evidence that could have been found would have been removed.
Except there is stuff hard to get rid of, but ... is there such evidence?


Comeys final words were about not impeaching Trump.
It comes close to what I have to come up with here, as so from the perspective onto whats finally on the desk. Nothing. Apparently. Aside of a whole lot of ... weird circumstances. As though Trump were some kind of Mob Boss.

To me his greatest offence is that of being a climate change denier.
Followed by warmongering.
Followed by hatemongering.
Or next to.
And the list goes on and on and I'm not entirely clear about how solid what is.

Corruption, Lieing, Supporting Terrorists and Dictators, Provoking a world war, ... twice now, ... no ... three times, ... counting the North Korea thing - which may even amount to more than that depending on how pedantic we want to be. If that guy wants to make friends with Russia, why doesn't he? Even if he colluded with them - if the result were good enough, ... that'd be something!

But how? "Just Do it!"?

Why attack Syria? Is Syria now to suffer as a decoy? "Look, me no colluding with Russia - I bomb Syria!".
Maybe we're looking at the wrong thing here.

Should the US president have the right to have been a crook and linked to the Mafia?
Or the Russian Mafia?

Its a slim line too between counting Putin in or not. Flynns link to Putin may have been one thing, while Trumps meddling with the elections yet another. The hacking then wasn't really a hacking either as we hear but more of a facebook thing.

There is no punchline to this because ... its not our job to figure things out. ...
We'll see!