Okay, let’s see if we can work this out.
Just yesterday, he finally admitted there is no tape of his conversation with Comey. But we knew that already, didn’t we? By the time he made that claim, we had long since figured out we couldn’t believe a word that came out of his fucking mouth. Or out of his fucking minuscule fingers, for that matter.
Seriously, those of us who were paying attention had come to realize way back at the kick-off of his candidacy that he had the same sort of relationship with integrity that Charlie Sheen has with sobriety. So by the time he threatened Comey with a recording of what was said between them that day, we were … like … Oh, yeah. Suuuuuure, you have a tape. And your Inauguration really was the biggest ever, uh-huh. And you really, truly won the popular vote, uh-huh. And Mexico really is going to pay for that wall you think you’ll build, uh-huh. And you really are a really, really smart man. Uh-huh.
But then yesterday, he comes right out and says it. Or tweets it, actually. “… I did not make, and do not have, any such recordings.”
So now I don’t know what to think. The only thing we know for absolute certain is that everything he says is a goddam lie, so obviously, this must mean he actually has a recording of Comey and him talking about dropping … or not … the Flynn investigation. But earlier, he claimed he did have such a recording, which meant he didn’t have such a recording. Right?
Friends, I gotta admit, I am having one hell of a time putting this together. It’s like that old puzzle, remember? … where two doors—one leading to safety, the other to death—are guarded by two sentries, one who always tells the truth, and the other who always lies. And to find the door to safety, you can ask only one question of only one guard.
Only, with either one of these pricks (the prick from two months ago and the prick from yesterday), we know they both always lie, so if we ask the question that solves the puzzle of the doors—Which would the other sentry say is the door to safety? or, more applicable to this dilemma, Which would the other prick say is the truth about the tape?—we’d still never know if either’s answer could be trusted.
But say. What if we change the question? Instead of asking what the other prick would say is the truth, let’s ask this: What would Comey say is the truth?
And of course, no matter which prick we chose to ask it of, the inevitable lie we would get for an answer will show us exactly who we can believe.