As is the Wind, so are Our Testimonies

   Some of my readers may not be believers in Christ. Some might wonder why I would believe. As it is Sunday, and I often write on Sunday topics this day of the week, consider this scripture:
   "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is everyone that is born of the Spirit." (John 3:8)
   I love this scripture. It is not used much, but has a wonderful message. I believe the message I take from it is correct, anyway. The wind blows where it will, and we can hear it, but cannot say what brings it, what causes it. So it is with our testimonies. We believe, but there is no proof for what we believe.

Putin, Plants, and How to Spread Propaganda

  It is an argument we have heard from the start: There simply isn't any evidence of Russian interference in the U.S. election.  Tonight, I wonder if we could trace that argument to its origin, if we might not be surprised.
  A week or so ago, I thought myself rather perceptive. When the Intel Community had come out with their initial report on Russian involvement -- back while Obama was still in office -- they suggested a lot of the Russian involvement amounted to no more than disinformation and propaganda. A week or so ago, I wondered how Russia would go about it, if they were to plant propaganda in our media.
  And, about a week ago, I figured I had figured it out. The large news outlets these days have comment threads for their stories. You simply plug in under a screen name, and offer your opinion. More than just that, talk shows often read from letters their listeners send.
  So, if you are a Russian, a practitioner of the art of propaganda and disinformation, and you are seeking a way to influence, what ways are available to you? What ways are out there, that you might spread your influence without being spotted?
  If there are other ways, I'm not thinking of them. And, regardless if there are other ways, this is a convenient and easy way.
  So, certainly, it seems they would use it.
   Yesterday, I was reading a story about an interview with Vladimir Putin that took place a week ago on NBC's Sunday Night With Megyn Kelly. I was a little shocked to read Putin saying,  "I haven't seen, even once, any direct proof of Russian interference in the presidential election in the United States." Although this is the first I've heard him say this, the news article suggested he has used the argument repeatedly in the past. 
  I was shocked because the comment is so similar to the argument I've been hearing all along, right from the start. And, I was taken back because I realized it might be a reflection that what I theorized about how the Russians go about spreading propaganda might well be accurate. 
  It is a strange the way Putin presents his argument. "I haven't seen, even once, any direct proof of Russian interference." He speaks as if he were an observer, not a participant, and as if he were weighing, himself, whether "the Russians" did it. 
  He speaks from the same perspective he would speak from if he were one of his plants, offering an online comment. 
   He probably has operatives doing the work, and doesn't do it, himself. And, if he does, he surely wouldn't be so careless. But one wonders what would happen if the FBI did trace the online comments back to their sources, and found some coming from no less than Putin's own computer.

'We are not a Nation that Debates Issues' -- David Koch

 "We are not a nation that debates issues. We vote on candidates' personalities." -- David Koch
  I do not fully agree with Koch. In some ways, it seems we debate issues as well as any nation. We debate guns, and abortion, and climate control. We even debate the Koch Brothers. 
  But, given that, I do  long for us to be a nation that debates open-mindedly, a nation whose people debate to discover the truth, a nation that discusses things to sort out the facts and settle on the truth, a nation that debates to reach a consensus, an agreement, with one side yielding to the other when truth is found.
  We are not that nation. In that context, as Koch says, "We are not a nation that debates the issues." We don't seek the truth. We assume we already have it, and we each use our version to bash the other.
   Wish, instead, we were seekers of truth, lovers of truth wherever it might to be found. Wish we ascribed to the truth whether found on the right or on the left. If we were such a people, the right and the left might cease to exist. We would mold together, as the motto suggests, one nation under God. 

Like a Frog in a Pot, They Stay in While the Temperature Rises

Bless those whose opinion falls on the other side concerning James Comey's testimony. Yes, I can see some logic in what they believe. But, I confess, for the most part, I do not understand how they can believe as they do. A quote from George Orwell is pertinent. "To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle." To me, they do seem to be struggling with what should be clear as day.
To me, Donald Trump has committed obstruction of justice, plain and simple.
I think of the story of the flog in a pot of water. The water is turned up slowly and the frog doesn't realize it until it is too late. Many signed on with Trump long ago. As the evidence has mounted against him, they've stayed in the pot. The temperature is rising, but they won't get out.

Indexes: James Comey, Donald Trump, Russian investigation

How it is not Obstruction of Justice, I do not Understand

   Obviously, many agree with the other side of the argument, and perhaps I can understand some of their reasoning. But, I confess, to me it seems an open-and-closed case of obstruction of justice. How is this not obstruction of justice: Your boss calls you in and discusses whether you are investigating him. He extracts from you an assertion that you are not. He asks if you want to stay on as head of the FBI. Now, since your term as director is for 10 years and it is years from over, that is not a natural question to be asking. Then, just after asking that, your boss asks you to pledge loyalty to him. How such an appeal is not to be considered a veiled threat of, "If you investigate me, I'll fire you," I do not understand. How that is not to be considered obstruction of justice, I do not understand.

Indexes: James Comey, Donald Trump, Russian investigation

Obstruction of Justice, Clearly

   Many hold the other opinion, that this was not obstruction of justice. Some will point to the fact James Comey said he did not feel influenced. If we was not influenced, there was no obstruction of justice, they will say.

   That opinion is worthy, though it differs from mine. I see what happened -- if it happened as Comey suggests -- as clearly obstruction of justice.

    So, you are the boss of the man conducting an investigation. You have power to fire him. You ask him if he wants to remain on as head of the FBI, then you say you need and expect his loyalty.

   Veiled threat? It is barely veiled, if at all. The message is clear: You don't touch me with this investigation, or you're fired.

   To all those who feel differently, your opinion is fine with me. I see the reasoning behind it. But that makes me no less vehement in my opinion. With me, it is clearly obstruction of justice. You don't use your power as president to block an investigation against yourself. 

Hidden in the Story on Reality Winner is Evidence of Hacking

  There's something hidden in a story that broke the last couple days.
   Way back, the thought was that while the Russians might have influenced the election, they didn't hack the votes. I remember stories saying no one was saying they actually changed the votes.
   Then comes Vladimir Putin saying Russians patriots, not the Russian government, itself, might have "hacked" the election. He perhaps was referring to things other than vote-changing, but that word "hacking" sure does seem to belong more to vote changing than to influence peddling.
   You hack election machines, not people's opinions.
   And, now this woman who was arrested for leaking information. Reality Winner, is her name.  The New York Times says the information she released included a description of Russian intelligence operatives cyberattacking a company that sells voter registration-related software and also cyberattacking 122 local election officials.
  That would only be done if you had designs on changing the votes, themselves. It doesn't mean the effort to change the votes was successful, or even carried out.
   But, it surely reveals that you had designs on changing the vote totals. Somehow, it seems this should be bigger news. Most news outlets, I believe, are not even including reference to this cyberattacking of those working with voting machines.
   Surely this is bigger news. Perhaps a headline saying, "New Evidence Emerges that Election Machinery was Targeted."
   I don't know. I do know that those who didn't want votes recounted suggested there shouldn't be such a recount because there was no evidence of tinkering. Here's your evidence.