Comey Testimony, Part 2

I'll let the lawyers sort out the political issues in James Comey's testimony today (June 8, 2017). The world wants to know, did Donald Trump commit a crime? Did he behave improperly? Is he the victim of a witch hunt? The only thing I know for sure about those questions is that the truth will come out, sooner or later. It almost always does. Remember Watergate? So, today's topic is a communication issue: making direct, forthright statements.

Instead, in this post, I talk about Comey's precision and brevity, which made his testimony so effective. His testimony made an especially good impression compared with the wordy, evasive answers that government officials gave in testimony to the same committee just yesterday.

James Comey, FBI photo

Here is Comey being brief in the early stages of the hearing, answering questions from Senator Richard Burr:

Burr: Do you have any doubt that Russia attempted to interfere in the 2016 elections? 
Comey: None

And again:

Burr: Director Comey, did the president at any time ask you to stop the FBI investigation into Russian involvement in the 2016 U.S. elections?
Comey: Not to my understanding, no.

 When it was necessary for him to explain his actions, Comey used more words but still answered the questions directly. Here he is answering a difficult question from Senator Dianne Feinstein:

Feinstein: . . . Why do you believe you were fired?
Comey: I guess I don't know for sure. I believe, I take the president, at his word, that I was fired because of the Russia investigation. Something about the way I was conducting it, the president felt created pressure on them that he wanted to relate. Again I didn't know that at the time. I watched his interview. I read the press accounts of his conversations. I take him at his word there. Look I could be wrong. Maybe he said something that's not true. I take him at his word, at least based on what I know now.

In the above answer, Comey did not try to express certainty about something that he could not prove, but still answered the question directly and precisely. He did mention his source of evidence, which was the President's TV interview with Lester Holt.

When a speaker is wordy and evasive, it sounds as if the speaker is hiding something. When a speaker is direct, willing to take a stand, the audience may feel more confidence that he speaker is telling the truth.

In real life, are truth-tellers wordier than liars, on the average, or are they more concise? Are wordy people less worthy of belief? How about evasive people? The answer is complicated, but an article in the Monitor on Psychology offers some interesting research findings. Are direct answers more believable? Right or wrong, they clearly are.

Here's Part 1 of my Comey comments.