Today’s paragraphs come to us from Conrad Black, writing for amgreatness.com.
Mr. Black has a very bad attitude about how media have behaved in their reporting of the so-called “collusion” between President Trump and Russia – even after it became clear that a) there was no evidence of any such collusion and b) in fact, President Trump has been especially hard on Russia. And he has written about it.
Here is how he begins:
The most immense and dangerous public scandal in American history is finally cracking open like a ripe pomegranate. The broad swath of the Trump-hating media that has participated in what has amounted to an unconstitutional attempt to overthrow the government are reduced to reporting the events and revelations of the scandal in which they have been complicit, in a po-faced ho-hum manner to impart to the misinformed public that this is as routine as stock market fluctuations or the burning of an American flag in Tehran.
For more than two years, the United States and the world have had two competing narratives: that an elected president of the United States was a Russian agent whom the Kremlin helped elect; and its rival narrative that senior officials of the Justice Department, FBI, CIA, and other national intelligence organizations had repeatedly lied under oath, misinformed federal officials, and meddled in partisan political matters illegally and unconstitutionally and had effectively tried to influence the outcome of a presidential election, and then undo its result by falsely propagating the first narrative. It is now obvious and indisputable that the second narrative is the correct one.
The authors, accomplices, and dupes of this attempted overthrow of constitutional government are now well along in reciting their misconduct without embarrassment or remorse because—in fired FBI Director James Comey’s formulation—a “higher duty” than the oath they swore to uphold the Constitution compelled them. Or—in fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s words—“the threat” was too great. Nevermind that the nature of “the threat” was that the people might elect someone he and Comey disapproved of as president, and that that person might actually serve his term, as elected.
Mr. Black’s continues – and his commentary is loaded with additional facts and logical conclusions which you would do well to use the link I’ve provided and read.
What Conrad Black has concluded is not new – I, and many others, have been talking about it for some time now. But he wins Paragraphs Of The Day honors for fitting so much of it into three paragraphs, and presenting it so vividly.