Are we being ‘gaslighted’?

One of my favorite movies is “Gaslight,” the great old black and white that netted Ingrid Bergman her first Oscar. She plays this gentle, lovely woman who falls madly in love with Charles Boyer, which is understandable because she had eyes.

He marries her after a whirlwind relationship, whisks her away to his home, and then proceeds to drive her crazy. Actually, she’s not crazy. He just makes her think she is by subtle, manipulative acts that have the poor woman doubting her own sanity.

And that’s where we get the term “gaslighting” someone, which the Urban Dictionary describes this way:

A form of intimidation or psychological abuse, sometimes called Ambient Abuse, where false information is presented to the victim, making them doubt their own memory, perception and quite often, their sanity.

I once dated a fellow who was extremely skillful in telling bald-faced lies and then acting hurt when I didn’t believe him.

It is a very clever tool, very effective, and when used on a grand scale it has the ability to make you question not only your sanity but your identity.

During the last year after President Trump took office, I’ve often felt as if people were trying to make me feel crazy (or stupid, or vile.)

I’ve been pretty darn clear about the fact that I do not like the man and that I don’t support many of his policy positions, including his draconian view of immigration.

But I am not a #NeverTrumper, and I’m trying to figure out how to function and flourish in this post-Trump landscape.

It takes patience, small steps and some faith that this country is organically and systemically designed to be resistant to the type of coups d’etat common in other sovereign states.

That’s why I was troubled, initially, when I heard about the two adulterous lovebirds at the FBI who were involved in investigating Russian collusion into the election, and who, it turns out, hate Trump.

Government employees are fully entitled to hold political, partisan views.

They are even allowed to talk about them, with each other, even if that “other” is a married woman who is not your wife and who is providing you with sexual favors.

What they are not allowed to do is talk about “insurance policies” against the election of a man running for president, while you are investigating his possible involvement in treasonous activity.

In a text to his mistress, Peter Strzok mentioned that he wanted to believe that Trump would never get elected, but then says “but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk.

It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”

It’s not a crime to hate a person who happens to be running for higher office.

The problem here is that one of those persons with a high security clearance and who was working on extremely sensitive issues suggested that there should be an insurance policy against the election of Donald Trump.

That’s troublesome, and the liberals who are trying to poo poo it and say that we’re crazy to worry about it and that it’s just a ploy to get rid of Robert Mueller are pulling what Charles Boyer did to Ingrid Bergman: gaslighting us.

Let me be very clear: I like Robert Mueller, a registered Republican, and I think he is a good man.

When he was made aware of the incredible bias exposed by the two adulterers on his payroll, he got rid of Strzok (Page had apparently left before the emails came to light.) I don’t want him removed from this investigation.

But don’t stand there and tell me there is nothing “here,” that I’m crazy to worry about bias, that the idea of an “insurance policy” is nothing more than rhetoric and that the suggestion of a coup d’etat is madness.

This is serious stuff, people. It’s not some great old black and white movie.

And this must be dealt with, immediately, comprehensively and with an unbiased eye.

Shrugging our shoulders would be ... insanity.