Regarding Risch’s questions, Comey’s answers inject doubt about Trump’s obstruction:
While Robert Ehlert accurately observed that Senator Risch’s questioning of James Comey was adept, I can’t agree with his conclusion that the entire exercise was a distraction. I’m troubled by the tenor of this column where the purpose of the hearing was to discover facts related to undeniable Russian attacks on our democratic process. What could be more important? Certainly this should be in the forefront of our national political discussion, and the discussion in Congress. Ehlert’s thesis is ultimately dismissive, and discourages readers from seeking further information or drawing alternative conclusions from the testimony. This reader is disappointed in the sentiment expressed in this article. The Statesman’s readership should be encouraged to dig deeper, pay closer attention. As a member of the fourth estate, Ehlert should support the pursuit of truth. Rather, I found this article to be dismissive, and therefore unpalatable.
Vala Metz, Boise