On Fox News tonight, Rep. Trey Gowdy cut right to the heart of the latest explosive Trump story. We’ve all heard now about the already-infamous Comey memo written about by the New York Times. As you know, they did not have a copy but had it read to them over the phone. Comey has not denied the memo, but it does mean that, at the very least, we don’t know the sum of it.

So Gowdy rightly, directly, and succinctly points out what should be obvious: we need to see it. “Your viewers and my fellow citizens deserve to see the entire context of whatever conversation may or may not have taken place,” he says.

GOWDY: Obviously want to see the memo, Obviously want to talk to Director Comey to determine how contemporaneous his recording of the conversation was. Also, importantly, not just what was said, but what did Director Comey hear? how did he take it? And thhat can only be done, with all due respect to the New York Times, that can only be done by looking at the memo and talking to Director Comey.

MCCALLUM: Yeah, The New York Times in this report, does not have the memo in their hands. it was read to them over the phone. So that, in and of itself … as you point out, it’s very difficult to get the context if you can’t read the whole thing.

GOWDY: Well if you go back to criminal procedure, which is my background, there is a doctrine called Rule of Completeness. Whenever part of the document is introduced, you got to be able to look at the entire document. Your viewers and my fellow citizens deserve to see the entire context of whatever conversation may or may not have taken place. And, quite frankly, Director Comey deserves an opportunity to come tell us how he heard it, what he heard, how pervasive it was, and how much of the conversation that segment consumed.

Fox’s McCallum also asks Gowdy a few seconds later whether he thinks that Director Comey was obligated to come forward earlier. This is an important question, because a lot folks are now pointing out his delay in reporting this incident as evidence that either it isn’t true, or that he violated the law by not reporting it. Gowdy, however, seems to disagree, either suggesting he was not obligated to report, or that the incident may not have risen to the level of being reported.

When McCallum asked if Comey was so obligated, Gowdy replied:

“I don’t think so. I’m probably in a minority here. I don’t think Dir. Comey reported President Obama the four different times he prejudged the outcome of an investigation, and there were four different times. Director Comey has not been afraid in the past to say ‘no’ to Presidents and Attorney Generals, um, he did it when he was with the Department of Justice. I think if he felt like this was an effort to influence him, he knows exactly what to do. But I won’t know that until I have a chance to ask him.”

A very interesting point indeed. I read it twice.