Confirmation bias is a phenomenon of the human psyche which causes people to tend to believe what they had previously thought after learning any further information concerning the topic at hand, regardless of what the new information factually or logically leads to.
For example, assume that you believe a certain substance found in a household product or food can lead to some sort of disease. If someone you know who uses this product becomes sick, you are prone to assume that the substance is to blame. If you believe that the substance is perfectly safe, you are prone to be critical of blame placed on the substance.
At the moment, I am either generally right about some earlier interpretations and predictions, falling victim to confirmation bias, or a mixture of the two.
Yesterday, June 8th, 2017, Jim Comey testified before congress, and the UK held a “snap” election to determine whether Theresa May would remain prime minister.
Going in to the Comey hearing, I suspected that one of two possible truths (or a combination) could explain the situation at hand in regards to President Trump:
- Jim Comey loves attention, drama, and the FBI, and hates Trump. As an outspoken defender of our intelligence agencies, Comey was threatened by Trump butting heads with them. He likely expected the president to be more mild mannered and to defer to the FBI more willingly, so Trump was a thorn in his side when both of those assumptions went by the wayside. Comey decided to use Trump’s “I hope” comment about the Michael Flynn investigation to raise suspicion about the president’s readiness to cooperate professionally, and leaked a memo about it to the media after being fired. To say it as crudely as possible, Comey didn’t want Trump’s dick swinging lower than “The Deep State’s” for the whole country to see.
- Comey wanted leverage. If Comey actually felt that Trump’s “I hope” comment was an allusion to obstruction of justice, he should have said something to congress or someone else. Instead of doing the integral thing, he kept the comment in his back pocket as a way to blackmail the president if need be.
In my opinion, something close to these explanations remains the most likely scenario after hearing Comey’s testimony.
First off, Comey shared his undying love and respect for the FBI multiple times during the hearing. With zero nuance, he pronounced that he and his colleagues have been doing spectacular work. There is no doubt that he wants the FBI’s name to glitter in the eyes of the American public.
Comey admitted that Trump made the “I hope” comment just once, and never followed up on it. Trump also disclosed to Comey that he should continue the Russia investigation and weed out any Trump surrogates who may have actually conspired with the Kremlin. Comey leaked the first comment, which makes Trump seem like Don Vito Corleone, but not the second, which makes him look like a patriot. Comey didn’t leak anything about Trump not even being under investigation either, and that would have said the president a few thousand headaches.
It seems to me that Comey was not going to allow Trump to tarnish the FBI’s reputation without damaging his own and probably made a concerted effort to take the “I hope” comment overly seriously when it fit his agenda. He didn’t take it seriously enough to take action, but he said that he took it seriously enough that suspicions about Trump were raised on live national television.
Comey also mentioned that it his understanding that the president has the right to open or close an FBI investigation as he pleases. Alan Dershowitz had said the same on CNN earlier in the day. This does not mean the FBI director can’t rat the president out for wrongdoing, but in the end, the president is the boss of the executive branch. Trump was Comey’s boss, and he fired him.
To me, all of this confirms that Comey is a sneaky and cerebral son-of-a-gun, and that Trump did not collude with the Russians or obstruct justice. Trump did it without elegance or class, but he justifiably terminated an insubordinate department head.
As for the UK snap election, an ominous hunch I’ve had came to fruition: the children of the enlightenment are susceptible to voting a left-wing revolutionary into power.
Jeremy Corbyn has been mocked across the media and within his own ranks ever since becoming the leader of the Labour Party. They joked that he was too out-there and not a serious candidate in a country that has long appreciated the empire of reason like the UK.
I didn’t laugh once.
Just as I believe that Bernie Sanders would have trounced Donald Trump in the 2016 election had he won the Democratic nomination, Corbyn was never a sure-bet to lose to Conservative Theresa May.
Personally, I might prefer Corbyn to May due to Corbyn’s loud and proud anti-war stance and May’s lukewarm-at-best economic Thatcherism and lack of concern for personal liberties. Essentially, what I would normally appreciate about a Conservative is not what May is made of, and for all his economic buffoonery, Corbyn resoundingly denounced the UK’s participation in the Iraq War and predicted its outcome and effects with tragic accuracy.
But my point of view is not popular in the UK. Libertarians do not exist in England for one reason or another. And what scares me is that despite the US being the epicenter of Libertarianism on Earth, I’m an extreme political minority in my country too.
It looks like the Conservatives will continue to hold a barely-there majority in the British parliament by joining forces with the Democratic Unionist Party of Northern Ireland, but Corbyn came that close.
It is entirely possible that someone as far left as Corbyn could become president in the United States and that a wave of Socialism could swarm the globe.
I knew this was true when I started this blog, and I’ll continue to write until I believe it’s not so.