Mercy! Mercy! That Dang Nabed PERCY!

Evasive Communications

If a boss is looking for a specific outcome, and the means to that outcome approaches or exceeds the line between right and wrong, chances are he or she will choose an indirect way of expressing a directive. This allegedly happened as claimed in the recent impeachment proceedings held in the House of Representatives and also played prominently in the FISA abuse identified in the Horowitz Report. Since these two examples involve both the Republicans and Democrats seeking to shape a narrative, it is illustrative. Both are examples of using the vague and indirect instead of coming right out and openly speaking or writing the truth.

For example, President Trump's phone conversation was construed as a gloved threat to the newly elected President of the Ukraine. His words, "Do us a favor" was translated to mean, "Read my lips, do what I'm asking, if you expect the aid to be released or ever get an invitation to the White House." He did not clearly lay out a quid pro quo by saying "If you don't do the investigation, you don't get the aid." Instead he allegedly made his desires known, indirectly. One doesn't have to be a high level politician to understand how this works. There are many other ways for laying out a course of action without expressing it directly or putting it in writing.

In a similar way the same message was sent from Comey and McCabe to the teams responsible for preparing the FISA warrants. The unspoken message was "Trump is a bad person who is doing bad things to this country and our job is to uncover his plotting and expose his nefarious activities." In this case the top brass at the FBI were not going to say, "I want that SOB Trump's head and don't care what it takes to do it." That's just not the way it works. It isn't necessary to express an outcome directly and it is often wiser to express it in more general terms. There are many other techniques, as I stated above, for making a desire known without coming right out and saying it.

In both these cases accusations were made, requiring more concrete proof to determine the truth of what really happened. To crystalize the truth, dispose of nuance and get to the bottom of matters it became necessary to air the issues openly and let the people reach their own conclusions.