Yesterday on Meet the Press, President Trump’s lawyer Rudolph Giuliani postulated, in an interview with MTP host Chuck Todd, that Donald Trump would have problems sitting for an interview with the Special Counsel because what Trump might say under oath would in fact be different than the facts of the event. In other words, he said that Trump’s “truth” might not be the same as the real “truth.”
Or, to break it down in more manageable terms … Truth isn’t truth.
Truth isn’t truth? But … I was under the impression that truth was undisputed.
Now it’s very possible that Rudy Giluiani is suggesting that what’s happening here isn’t truth versus truth, but testimony versus testimony. In other words, there’s two sides to the story and you have to find the truth inbetween.
Or perhaps Giuliani’s thinking more about perspective. Everybody sees a crime from a different perspective. Like the old saying that six blind men would touch an elephant, and based on where they touched the elephant, might perceive the animal as six different beasts. It’s all perspective, right? How you see the story is how you tell the story.
Maybe, just maybe, it’s not something that we can understand. Maybe the truth is such an abstract model that we simply can’t handle it.
Or perhaps we need a marker, a device that would make it impossible to obfuscate or lie or deceive. Perhaps something that could be wrapped around us, which would automatically compel us to tell the truth.
Or maybe, instead of a judge and jury, we can take this to the level of reality television and hire four panelists and a host to determine, once and for all, who is really telling the truth.
So whatI’m saying in this blog post is … if the truth isn’t the truth, then what is it? if A isn’t A, is it B? Or am I bordering into Ayn Rand territory?
But then again, there’s always video of other kinds of truth… and although this was done for a comedy roast … perhaps there’s some truth to be found here?
I’m just going to leave this here. And that’s the trutttttttthhhhhh…. 😀