There are naive questions, tedious questions, ill-phrased questions, questions put after inadequate self-criticism. But every question is a cry to understand the world. There is no such thing as a dumb question.
~Carl Sagan
During my time as a professor at Miami University, once a week I would reserve 10 to 15 minutes for what became known as “Dumb Question Time.” Students were offered an opportunity to challenge me with any question they always wanted to, but had never asked, a faculty member. The topics ranged from “Do you have favorite students and does it affect how you grade them?” to “What are your guilty pleasures?” And it was often the least expected inquiry which resulted in the most insightful conversations.
I thought about “Dumb Question Time” while watching MSNBC’s The Beat with Ari Melber last night. A scheduled segment was interrupted with “breaking news.” Ivanka Trump had conducted official government business using a private email account. After hearing from the reporter who broke the story, Melber turned to Washington bureau chief for Mother Jones David Corn and said:
David, I could ask the question two ways. I could ask you on the one hand, what do you think is the import of this story? Or I could ask you, ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
In that moment, Melber asked the “dumb question” every other reporter and pundit has failed to ask for the past two years. Imagine how different the news coverage over the past two weeks would have been if representatives of the fourth estate as a whole had chosen a similar approach.
Imagine if Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace had responded to Donald Trump’s assessment the mid-term election “was a tremendous victory for me and the Republican party,” ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
When Trump said he was unaware of Matthew Whitaker’s criticism of the Mueller investigation, Wallace had again asked, ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
When Trump took the word of another autocrat Saudi Crown Prince MBS (which I believe is short for “Mega Bull Schiff”) over that of the CIA concerning the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, the only appropriate response was, ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
When Trump claimed the Secret Service prevented him from attending a commemorative ceremony at Aisne-Marne Cemetery in France, why didn’t at least one reporter ask, ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
When Trump said he was too busy making phone calls to travel 4.5 miles from the White House to the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier to honor veterans last Monday, where was the resounding, ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
When Kellyanne Conway compared the White House press office’s doctored version of the video of CNN’s John Acosta to instant replay at sporting events, it should not take a Carl Sagan to ask, ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
I could go on and on, but you get the point. Ironically, the only other people regularly asking the question, “Are you kidding me?” are Trump’s defense team when their client told Chris Wallace he alone had drafted the answers to Mueller’s questionnaire.
POSTSCRIPT
Speaking of the media and their coverage of current events, perhaps they should be paying more attention to journalist icon Edward R. Morrow who once said, “The obscure we see eventually. The completely obvious, it seems, takes longer.”
On November 16, ABC News reported, “Nearly three dozen sealed criminal indictments have been added to the federal court docket in Washington, D.C. since the start of 2018.” The press has offered two possible explanations.
- To avoid a “Comey Moment,” Mueller chose to keep the indictments under wraps until after the mid-term election.
- In anticipation of the firing of Attorney General Jeff Session, Mueller filed the indictments while Rod Rosenstein still was responsible for overseeing the investigation.
Both explanations are feasible with a couple of caveats. If some indictments were filed as early as January, going forward immediately would not have violated the Justice Department’s “60-day rule” (assuming the policy is valid). And, if you wanted to make sure Sessions’ successor did not intervene in the grand jury proceedings, why not move forward and issue arrest warrants for the targeted subjects?
Previous Mueller filings and indictments provide a better explanation for sealing the court documents. In each instance, Mueller’s team laid out in great detail with substantial evidence each of the alleged crimes. As the indictments move closer to Trump’s inner circle, we should expect no less. This information would be invaluable to Trump’s defense team as it would offer an opportunity to manufacture alternative explanations for any perceived collusion or obstruction of justice. I have no doubt Mueller wanted Trump to first give his side of the story (either through written answers or an interview) without benefit of what the Mueller team already knows.
As I have often said, Occam’s Razor can be a blunt instrument. In this case, it may be as sharp as a non-existent laser carving knife offered by Matthew Whitaker’s defunct company World Patent Marketing, Inc.
For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP