“Show, not tell,” is an oft-repeated precept of good writing. In his opening statement to the Senate Intelligence Committee, a written copy of which was posted online Wednesday afternoon, James Comey demonstrated a mastery of that concept.
The former FBI director’s decision to employ this strategy appears to betray a strong suspicion of President Trump — a suspicion that Comey chose to show, rather than explicitly tell. Whether members of the committee are able to pry that admission from him tomorrow is a key question.
Take the paragraph where Comey compares details of his interactions with Trump to his interactions with former President Barack Obama, simply including the information without revealing why.
I felt compelled to document my first conversation with the President-Elect in a memo. To ensure accuracy, I began to type it on a laptop in an FBI vehicle outside Trump Tower the moment I walked out of the meeting. Creating written records immediately after one-on-one conversations with Mr. Trump was my practice from that point forward. This had not been my practice in the past. I spoke alone with President Obama twice in person (and never on the phone) – once in 2015 to discuss law enforcement policy issues and a second time, briefly,
for him to say goodbye in late 2016. In neither of those circumstances did I memorialize the discussions. I can recall nine one-on-one conversations with President Trump in four months – three in person and six on the phone. Why Comey felt the need to document his conversations with Trump but not his conversations with Obama he doesn’t say. Nor does he say why he believes Trump contacted him with such a high frequency. He simply includes the detail, showing readers he distrusted Trump’s motives without directly saying so.
Recalling a conversation where Trump demanded his loyalty, Comey wrote, “I didn’t move, speak, or change my facial expression in any way during the awkward silence that followed.”
But why?
By including the detail without explaining why he behaved in such a way, Comey shows the readers tension between Trump’s pressure and his own commitment to impartiality, rather than resorting to an explicit description of his reaction.
Comey did drop words such as “uneasy,” and “strange” throughout the testimony, even referring at times to his “instincts” and personal understandings. But he also clearly made a concerted effort to describe his interactions with Trump without editorializing.
Why does any of this matter?
On Thursday, Comey will face questions from members of the Senate Intelligence Committee related to his relationship with Trump. His cautious opening statement is a hint that observers should not expect Comey to traffic in much speculation regarding the president’s motives Thursday and will likely try to be as careful as possible with his language.
“If a writer of prose knows enough of what he is writing about he may omit things that he knows and the reader, if the writer is writing truly enough, will have a feeling of those things as strongly as though the writer had stated them,” said Ernest Hemingway, outlining his famed Iceberg Theory of omission for generations of future writers.
Comey appears to be one of the legendary author’s many students.
Emily Jashinsky is a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.
