A "Broader Point" About Truth

It's the last paragraph that marks out an interesting claim, but I'll give you enough of the setup to judge its worth in this context.
Obama and his surrogates–notably the slug (or is he a cockroach?) Ben Rhodes–harrumph that Obama could not unilaterally order electronic surveillance. Well, yes, it is the case that Obama did not personally issue the order: the FISA court did so. But even if that is literally correct, it is also true that the FISA court would not unilaterally issue such an order: it would only do so in response to a request from the executive branch. Thus, Obama is clearly implicated even if he did not issue the order. He could have ordered his subordinates to make the request to the court, or could have approved a subordinate’s request to seek an order. Maybe he merely hinted, a la Henry II–“will no one rid me of this turbulent candidate?” (And “turbulent” is a good adjective to apply to Trump.) But regardless, there is no way that such a request to the court in such a fraught and weighty matter would have proceeded without Obama’s acquiescence.

I therefore consider that the substance of Trump’s charge–that he was surveilled at behest of Obama has been admitted by the principals.

This episode illustrates a broader point that is definitely useful to keep in mind. What Obama and his minions (and the Democrats and many in the media) say is likely to be correct, strictly speaking, but fundamentally misleading. In contrast, what Trump says is often incorrect, strictly speaking, but captures the fundamental truth.
With apologies to the lawyers among us, whom I am sure are careful never to do this, this 'strictly speaking correct, but fundamentally misleading' bit is what people hate about lawyers. Sometimes also journalists.


jaed said...

Another variation is a reporter's dictum that Trump's supporters take him serious but not literally, while his opponents (including most of the media) take him literally but not seriously.

(I'm reminded of when Trump said something about how Obama "founded ISIS", and CNN responded by saying that Obama had not incorporated ISIS.)

Dad29 said...

Levin was on Fox this morning. He makes the case--VERY convincingly--that the Obama crowd did the deed. How does he build the case? From MSM reporting!

Grim said...

I'm afraid they're going to learn the hard way that they're no longer really in charge. What I wonder about is how much collateral damage there's going to be to the rest of us, and to the institutions we depend upon.

Grim said...

Not, mind you, that I have changed my mind about dissolving those institutions to establish new ones. That still seems like a wise potential plan. But that is best done mindfully, with care, rather than haphazardly as the result of the bureaucracy and the elected government going to war with each other.

Texan99 said...

There are people to whom you can't use imagery at all--no metaphors, no analogies--without getting back a blank objection. "The pot calling the kettle black? But he's not a pot, and I'm not a kettle." It's a sign of deep stupidity, mental illness, or both. As Churchill said, it's the sort of pettifoggery up with which I will not put.