Peter Banks
Jul 4, 2017 · 2 min read

I don’t think I can put exclusion, meaning exclusion of information when talking about a subject, in the same category as lying. Are there circumstances when these two acts could be considered equally heinous? I suppose there are. More than anything, exclusion or omission is a window into the soul of the person who excludes or omits. There is something within the story that they are telling that they not only don’t want the person listening to, or reading, to hear, but they also don’t want to believe it themselves. They think that if they can repeat their narrative enough times, without crucial information, no one will notice.

Unfortunately for National Review, this isn’t the 1950s. We have the internet. In particular, we have the ability to revisit recorded video or audio at the drop of a hat.

I wish I could go into all of the cases of exclusion perpetrated by the magazine this week. Instead, I’ll just go into one. In particular, the case of Kamala Harris, the Democratic Senator from California, asking Attorney General Jeff Sessions whether he could site the regulation that prevented him from sharing his conversation with the President, while not needing to invoke any kind of privilege, is a pretty good example of what I’m talking about.

Sure, this tiny moment in the hearing a couple of weeks ago got some play in the week after the hearing because Senator Harris has been shushed multiple times. Apparently, National Review believes that this was because of standards of decorum in the Senate. Honestly, it really doesn’t matter to me. All that matters is that white, male Senators told their only colleague who is both a woman and a person of color to not ask questions that are pertinent to the hearing because she was insistent.

What’s more important is that the Attorney General of the United States refused to answer questions that legally, he was obliged to answer. When you marry this to the fact that the Attorney General previously lied under oath, it’s pretty obvious that he’s trying to evade the truth.

This shouldn’t be in dispute.

Of course, National Review literally doesn’t mention the question or the lack of response during the interaction. Attorney General Sessions, who pointed to, what he claimed, was a written regulation regarding his conversations with the President, could not name the rule, and could not say for sure whether it was written down. As a skilled prosecutor, Senator Harris knew Sessions was full of shit. Her colleagues, for some reason, didn’t want the Attorney General, who was clearly lying, to be embarrassed. And apparently, neither does National Review.

Peter Banks

Written by

Community Development, writer, father, husband, son, friend, human

A Liberal Reads National Review

You got it

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade