Greenwald Wrongly Accuses Emanuel of Lying About FoleyGate
Posted on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 08:00:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Glenn Greenwald, a very fine blogger, is over the top and I think wrong when he accuses Rahm Emanuel of lying about FoleyGate. Glenn's argument goes as follows:
Did Rahm Emanuel explicitly and clearly lie during his October appearance on ABC?Emanuel would likely say that he did not "lie," because each time he was asked whether he was "aware" of the e-mails -- which he plainly was -- he never denied being "aware" of them. Instead -- he would likely argue -- he changed the subject by denying that he ever "saw" the e-mails, a fact which appears (based on what we know) to be true (or at least not demonstrably false). Therefore, in the narrowest and most technical way, an argument could be constructed that Emanuel did not actually "lie" in his responses.
But that argument, ultimately, is nonsense. If you listen to the video, there is little doubt that Emanuel was lying in every meaningful sense of that word. He not only denied having "seen" the e-mails, but also interrupted Stephanapolous's first question about whether he was "aware" of the e-mails with an emphatic "no," and at least on one other occasion, denied not only having seen the e-mails, but also having been aware of them. Those denials were just outright false (i.e., "lies").
Absolutely not. In every meaningful sense of the word, Emanuel ducked the question in order to not lie. Ducking the question is not lying Glenn. It is really surprising to me to read a lawyer write those words. Witnesses duck and avoid questions all the time. UNDER OATH. In any meaningful sense, Glenn has misstated the meaning of lying. Emanuel expressly said he had not SEEN the e-mails. An obvious signal to anyone thinking here. What would a good questioner have asked as a followup? To me it is obvious - did you ever HEAR of the POSSIBILITY of the existence of such e-mails? From whom? What were you told? But Glenn plays the ingenue here for some reason. It is poorly done by him.
More.
And Glenn's reasoning after this really leads him to folly:
Independent of the question of whether Emaneul "technically lied" -- and far more important -- is the fact that Emanuel was clearly and deliberately misleading. Any reasonable person would have come away from that interview (as I know I did) with the strong impression that Emanuel was completely unaware of any e-mails sent by Foley to the pages, and that he had no reason to know anything was amiss with Foley until ABC broke the story.
I strongly disagree, Any reasonable person would have come away thinking Emanuel was told about the e-mails but never saw them. Glenn continues:
In fact, Emanuel emphasized how inappropriate it was for Republican House Leadership to allow Foley, in 2005, to become the Chair of the Missing and Abused Children Caucus despite what Emanuel called the "warning signs" about Foley's behavior. But Emanuel was aware of at least some of these same "warning signs" in 2005, and he said nothing about them at the time. He was guilty of doing exactly what he was piously and indignantly accusing the GOP House Leaders of doing -- namely, knowing about the Foley e-mails to pages and taking no action.
This is just false. First, Emanuel did not run the House and could not decide who ran which committees. Second, Emanuel did not know have personal knowledge of the e-mails, no doubt he chose not to, whereas it was the DUTY of the REPUBLICAN leadership to know and see the e-mails. Rahm Emanuel had no such duty. IT is false to say, as Glenn does, that Emanuel did exactly what the GOP leadership did on this. Just plain false. Glenn should know better. More importantly, why does Glenn play the ingenue here? He writes:
None of this excuses or mitigates the conduct of the GOP House Leaders in the slightest. Nor does it vindicate the claim that this was some sort of "dirty trick" on the part of Democrats to sabotage GOP electoral chances. . . . But what it does mean is that Emanuel was guilty of exactly what he was accusing the GOP House Leadership of. And his hypocritical, pious lectures about the "warning signs" which GOP Leaders had were dishonest at their core.
It would be dishonest to argue that Emanuel taking a different approach on his ABC appearance would not have been reported any other way than as the Foley scandal being a Democratic dirty trick. Is Glenn pretending that he thinks it would have played otherwise? That Emanuel's ducking and weaving was not necessary to avoid a distortion of the story? Glenn, you are a big boy. Emanuel was not under oath, he was not pressed on his slippery answers, he was not doing anything that does not happen every day and has happpened everyday on political talk with the Media.
Your post is completely over the top. It is wrong.
| < Sentencing Reform in CA? | Monday Open Thread > |
