Greenwald Wrongly Accuses Emanuel of Lying About FoleyGate

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 08:00:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

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 >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Greenwald Wrongly Accuses Emanuel of Lying About FoleyGate | 46 comments (46 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Its ok (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by soccerdad on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 09:50:26 AM EST

I dont expect honesty out of the Dems either.
If everyone is going to split hairs so finely, I'm just going to assume that they are lying. Saves a lot of time. I guess its too much to ask that one party was more up front and honest.

Let's flip the coin (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Che's Lounge on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 09:51:27 AM EST

"So you said you are aware of them?"

"Yes"

But you haven't SEEN them?

"No".

"So for all you know they may not even exist."

"I haven't seen them".

More lube anyone?

Bobbing and weaving (none / 0) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 09:52:56 AM EST

Not lying.


: Wait (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by Officious Pedant on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 02:34:39 PM EST

If the Midterm election was about open and transparent government, a change in direction, and a repudiation of the deceit and corruption embraced by the Republicans, then this statement is bunk. The man was deliberately deceitful, and worked feverishly to omit statements that would weaken the "case" against Foley. (Lying by omission.)
A lie by omission is still a lie. And I don't want to hear about the party's needful victory. Or that those of us who aren't aware that politics is a full contact sport are just naive. Bunk to that, too. You want to rail against the Republicans for the stuff they didn't say, or didn't do, but give a Dem a pass for the same kind of crap, then I say you are part of the problem.
Corruption will continue so long as we allow it. So long as we do not call it as we see it, without respect to party or agreeable ideology. To do less is to finally admit that for all the surface differences, both parties are the same at heart. Avaricious influence peddlers who will do or say anything to acquire power and retain it.

Enough ducking and weaving already (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by Pete Guither on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 10:13:10 AM EST

I don't care if you call it duck-and-weave, misleading, or lying. I want politicians on both sides called when they aren't fully forthcoming with the public. They work for us.

Glenn has done a great service by pointing out tons of lies by Republicans, but he's not going to be a Democratic cheerleader, and it is improper to expect him to do so.

I think the people can take airing dirty laundry in public. I think they demand it now. The fact that the liberal blogs have come out publicly against Representative Jefferson was a good thing for the Democratic party.

It would be a wonderful thing if the public could get the notion that when Democrats obfuscate, or lie, or put lobbyists desires first, or promote party over principle, that other Democrats will call them on it. It would be better for the future of the Democratic party (and the Republic) since the public already knows that Republicans will lie about everything.

Defending Rahm's small lie as "ducking and weaving... necessary to avoid a distortion" is the politics as usual that is making our nation sick.

Sure sure (none / 0) (#17)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 11:08:44 AM EST

And here I thought it was the incompetent Administration of Bush that was making us sick.

Thanks for clearing that up for me.


It's about the intent to deceive. (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by ShochuJohn on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 11:57:37 AM EST

"Bush is worse" is hardly a defense to Rahm's evading a question in such a way as to deliberately give people the wrong idea. Even if it is arguably not a technical lie when parsed out precisely, if it is intended to give people a false impression, and it does in fact give people a false impression, it is functionally a lie and should be called as such.

Most Americans do not have law degrees and are not sufficently skilled at parsing half-truths so as to not be misled by answers of this sort. This is how Bush got so many people to believe that Saddam had something to do with 9.11 without actually saying it. There is no reason to allow politicians to do this. It is patently dishonest and as we have seen, terribly destructive. Why not call them out on it, regardless of party?

As soon as a politician says something with the intention that the American people get the wrong idea, that politican is betraying the people's trust.


It avoided the question (none / 0) (#32)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 01:52:15 PM EST

How did it give you the wrong idea?

Personally, I got the RIGHT idea from the answer.

Bush is worse is nowhere in my argument.

I hate straw men.


I also hate straw men (none / 0) (#35)
by ShochuJohn on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 02:29:09 PM EST

You'll note that I never said it gave me the wrong idea. Clearly you understood it as well. We are both bright well-educated people. Some are not as savvy and this was clearly intended to mislead those people. No doubt, many were misled. Indeed, if he did not intend such deception, there would scarcely have been a point to his slippery answer to begin with. If he simply wanted to avoid the question honestly, he could do that with a simple, "I have no comment on that." That would be wholly truthful. However, he would have forgone the benefits of seeming to deny he knew about Foley's problems in the eyes of the marginally tuned-in public while retaining the ability to claim he did not affirmatively lie.

It's a stunningly effective strategy. Just ask all the soldiers in Iraq who somehow got the impression they are avenging 9.11 despite hearing no affirmative lies from Bush on that account. However, it is also morally reprehensible to purposively mislead in this fashion. Perhaps Democrats should consider embracing a higher ethical standard

And for the record, quoth you "And here I thought it was the incompetent Administration of Bush that was making us sick." I shortened it to, "Bush is worse" for the following reason: You were responding to this comment, "Defending Rahm's small lie as 'ducking and weaving... necessary to avoid a distortion' is the politics as usual that is making our nation sick." Indeed, Bush misleads without affirmatively lying frequently. That's why we're in Iraq. This is further why responding to criticism of Rahm's intentional dishonesty with a reference to Bush accomplishing more dreadful ends through the same immoral means amounts to little more than, "Bush is worse."

The politics of intentional deception has made our nation sick. The first step to a cure is to stop contributing to the disease.


: If it did not DECIEVE you (none / 0) (#39)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 02:36:52 PM EST

then what are we talking about here? Who do you think was misled? Seriously. Who?
I am not one who thinks my on the ballness is superior to the average person's. OR I did not until this episode.

Sick is sick (none / 0) (#44)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 05:18:04 PM EST

Sick is sick Big Tent.

Not Repub sick.

Not Demo sick.

Just sick. As when you wrote:

Ducking the question is not lying Glenn.

A question:

Have you ever heard of the sin of omission???


Big Tent is right (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by HeadScratcher on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 11:30:52 AM EST

He didn't lie. He purposely mislead the people he works for (taxpayers) for his personal gain (power). Yeah, you should feel better defending this.

I guess it just depends on what the meaning of 'is' is, right?

He misled you? (none / 0) (#19)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 11:45:02 AM EST

Were you REALLY misled?

Please. THese tears of dispair over politicians misdirecting is too too funny.


That's the ticket (none / 0) (#40)
by scarshapedstar on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 04:59:48 PM EST

Rahm was covering for Mark Foley, trying to prevent a Democratic landslide. Makes perfect sense!

God bless our wingnuts. Just goes to show, a broken clock is wrong 83,398 times a day.


: Correction (none / 0) (#41)
by scarshapedstar on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 05:00:33 PM EST

Actually, that's 86,398. I apologize to anyone who was misled.

IS (none / 0) (#45)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 05:19:10 PM EST

Partisan is.


BTW HIS personal gain (none / 0) (#22)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 11:52:41 AM EST

was a Democratic victory.

I do not know if you thought of that as a gain for you too.

Most of us did.


Call me Daffy, but... (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by desertswine on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 11:46:42 AM EST

Ducking the question is not lying...

it quacks like a lie.

: I'll call you daffy (none / 0) (#21)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 11:51:38 AM EST

because lying is affirmatively telling a falsehood.
The word LIE is inapplicable here. And that is the point of the post.
If you folks and Glenn want to equate Rahm's misdierction with what the GOP leadership did on Foley, that is your right.
But you can not say he lied. Because he did not.
And of course that is the bigger issue - Glenn should know that if Emanuel did not bib and weave n this the Foley mess was going to be called a Dem dirty trick. Anyone who jnows anything about the Media knows this.
To act innocent and shocked that there is gambling going on in politics, as Glenn does and as many commenters her have, while knowing what the MEdia would have done ewith the story, are engaged in a form of lying themselves, truth be told

don't be idiots. of course he didn't lie, (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by cpinva on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 12:05:16 PM EST

he obfuscated. what, you never heard the saying "when in doubt, obfuscate"? this is not to be confused with the equally popular "when in doubt, i whip it out, got me a rock n roll band, it's a free for all!"

geez, this is a time honored tactic; in courtrooms, congressional hearings, and sunday talk shows.

i'm surprised none of the rest of you picked up on it, and shocked that a lawyer would seem totally unaware of the distinction. perhaps someone should check that degree a tad more closely.

obfuscation is not lying (check the dictionary), it's clouding the issue. most people (such as mr. emanuel) do it intentionally. some (like mr. bush) do it by accident, because they just truly haven't a clue.

the idea is to avoid directly responding to a question. truly excellent practioners can create such confusion, that the other party soon forgets what it was they were talking about in the first place.

this is where it helps to be a competent interviewer:

"did you know that the e-mails existed, yes or no?"

"i never saw them."

"that isn't what i asked. did you know the e-mails existed, yes or no?"

at some point, either the person will finally respond, or refuse to.

however, mr. emanuel didn't lie. he wasn't fully forthcoming, but he most assuredly didn't lie.

: Thank you (none / 0) (#27)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 12:48:29 PM EST

So what? (4.00 / 1) (#3)
by scribe on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 09:45:36 AM EST

This is wasted time and effort, unless either (a) one counts re-sharpening one's arguing teeth as time well spent or (b) there's really a serious bid underway to depose Rahm.

I have no real love for Rahm - he tried mightily to minimize the Dem victory chances in Nov. past, wasted millions on "his" (corporato-crat, as opposed to electable netroots) candidates while refusing to fund folks like Charlie whats-his-name in NC, who lost by about 300 votes despite receiving zero DNCC dollars, and then elbowed his way to the head of the line for credit when the Dems collected on all the bad checks the Repugs wrote themselves*.

So, if the Dems were to get rid of Rahm, all the better IMHO. But it ain't gonna happen. OK?

There's one thing one has to admire the Repugs for - they clean their laundry in private and thereby don't give the media ready-made opportunities to divert attention from serious public policy changes (whether one likes the proposals or not) onto fluffy the he-said-she-said of BS and BJs.

Let's spend our time, effort and media exposure on beating the crap out of the Repugs and restoring the Constitutional balance they've tried to wreck, and doing both of these so throroughly and in such a way that it will take even more than 30 years for the Repugs to ever raise their heads out of the ooze again. And not spend it on silliness like this.

* Let's not kid ourselves here - the victory was more due to the Repugs imploding under the weight of their own insanities and inanities than it was to some sterling quality of the Dem message. I'm still trying to figure out what the Dem message was, other than toss a few crumbs to the poor and soon-to-be-poor working class. Real reform - like repealing Taft-Hartley and making union organizing easier, repealing the Estate tax cut and reinstating the Rule Against Perpetuities, trashing "No Child Left Behind" and digging out the truth and eliminating NSA and OGA spying in the US - ain't gonna happen. Wasn't even proposed, even though it would garner abundant support if it was seriously discussed.

My post is a response (none / 0) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 09:52:02 AM EST

After 25 years... (none / 0) (#8)
by sphealey on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 09:53:40 AM EST

> There's one thing one has to admire the
> Repugs for - they clean their laundry
> in private and thereby don't give the
> media ready-made opportunities to
> divert attention from serious public
> policy changes (whether one likes the
> proposals or not) onto fluffy the
> he-said-she-said of BS and BJs.

If there is one thing I have learned in 25 years of project management, first in large-scale engineering works and then in enterprise software implementation, it is to RUN, not walk, from any vendor that classifies honest open discussion of problems as "airing dirty laundry" and tries to keep those discussions secret. Lots of fresh air and sunlight removes the smell from dirty laundry, not moldy piles hidden in a Washington DC basement.

sPh


: my point was (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by scribe on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 10:49:56 AM EST

not that one should avoid addressing problems or frank, honest open commuication. I'm all in favor of that. Repugs used to do plenty of that inter sese (until they became so hooked on the kool-aid that they could no longer see straight). The point is, they addressed the problem behind the closed doors, resolved it, then came out and worked as a unified party front.
It was only when their views and ground truth became severely disconnected and they refused to address ground truth, favoring rote recitation of bromides, that their machine started faltering. And, that disconnect stemmed directly from having an idiot as Preznit, one who would not address ground truth....
Working out the problems without giving the press and opposition a chance to stick their noses in worked quite well for the Repugs, reducing the number of variables to be addressed....

He wasn't under oath. He lied. (1.00 / 1) (#13)
by jerry on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 10:48:16 AM EST

He clearly lied. And your defense of him, frankly, is why people hate lawyers.

He was asked: were you aware of them?
He said: No, I never saw them.

Frankly, I consider what he did worse than lying.

My defense of him (3.00 / 2) (#15)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 11:07:12 AM EST

is why people hate lawyers?

Boy oh boy.

But your saying "he lied. He clearly lied" is as convincing an argument as I have seen in many a day.

Thanks for the briliance.

But wait, it is even better. It is WORSE than lying.

NOw you lost me. If he CLEARLY LIED, how could it be WORSE THAN LYING.

You need to redo the logic my good man.

But I am sure my insistence on logic is one of the reasons people hate lawyers.

Redo my logic? You need to redo the spellcheck (3.00 / 2) (#28)
by jerry on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 01:13:31 PM EST

Yeah, a lawyer and a representative of Congress has an ethical obligation to tell the truth. Intentional evasions and misdirection of the public by a lawyer and a congressman is a worse offense than just the mere lying of one person to another.

I understand you pretend not to get that which is why you think Rahm is your client and you advocate for him.

If Rahm were speaking about a client facing criminal charges, I would a) tell him to shut up, and b) possibly understand his evasion. However we was representing only himself in his public actions in the role of legislator.

Unless he is talking about blowjobs, I expect clear and truthful answers. If he can't provide that, than he should either shut up, or deal with the consequence of being called a liar.

The public should be able to expect clear and truthful answers from their representatives. It is the basis for an informed decision. And it is completely reasonable for the public to be outraged when confronted with the evidence of purposeful lies and misdirection.

Instead of jumping up and down at Greenwald who has violated some oath between criminals you feel he should be attending to, YOU should be acting in the name of integrity, and sadly, you are not.

Defending corruption and defending inaction when action was called for is worse than lying.

Insistence on logic is not why people hate lawyers. People hate lawyers because of how they twist logic to fit their needs.


yeah (none / 0) (#31)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 01:38:05 PM EST

whatever.

Your argument is not even Swiss cheese.

Ask Jeralyn if she is advising her clients to go out of their way to reveal harmful truths.

Your nastiuness and lack of facts and logic make you an unpleasant discourse partner.

I won't continue.


Whose client? (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by ShochuJohn on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 01:57:55 PM EST

Rahm is not our client. He is not paying us. We are paying him. He owes us honesty. Deception and double talk may be custom, but that does not make it justified.

There may be a temptation in the Democratic party to condemn the other side for their sins and shortcomings while brushing off our own as insignificant or excusable on a technicality. I would caution against this. Failing to hold their own people to proper ethical standards is a main reason why the GOP were properly swept from office.

We would be wise to not follow their lead.


who said he was? (none / 0) (#34)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 02:01:58 PM EST

I was responding to a nonsequitor in the comment.

My mist ake I grant you but you conflate that with Rahm Emanuel being someone's client. He is his own client.

Sorry, no cigar.


I disagree. (none / 0) (#36)
by ShochuJohn on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 02:32:28 PM EST

Rahm Emmanuel will be his own client when he stops accepting taxpayer money to serve as an elected representative. Until then, he is in the employ of the American people and is obliged to be forthright with them.


: Um (none / 0) (#38)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 02:35:16 PM EST

And this has what to do with the price of tea in China?
On ABC, he was Rahm Emanuel, DCCC Chairman.
Again, this seems otherworldly to me.

Respectfully disagree (none / 0) (#1)
by sphealey on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 09:26:08 AM EST

Without getting into the larger question of whether or not Democrats should be emulating the Fleischer/Snow method of miscommunication, here is the transcript as quoted by Greenwald:

= After that answer, Putnam interjected this question: "Were you aware of them?" Emanuel replied: "Never saw them." A moment later, Stephanopoulos said to Emanuel: "So you were not aware of them, had no involvement?" Emanuel replied: "No. Never saw them. No involvement. . . ." Putnam again asked: "Was there an awareness?" Emanuel replied: "No. Never saw them. The first time I ever saw these things, right here was when Brian Ross broke the story." =

Assuming that Greenwald's quote is accurate, when Emanuel responded to "So you were not aware of them" with "No. Never saw them" he lied. The first sentence in that paragraph, "No.", is sufficient to prove the lie, but in any case responding to 'were you aware of' with a negative is sufficient to imply the general negative even if a specific modifier is used.

Sorry.

sPh

He never saw them (none / 0) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 09:32:03 AM EST

and thus could not say he was personally aware of them.

His never saw them is the point of the answer.

Emanuel ducked and weaved but did not lie.

Your excerpt proves the opposite to me.


The sentence "No." (none / 0) (#9)
by sphealey on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 09:55:25 AM EST

We are working from a transcript here (at 2nd hand, yet), so we are at the mercy of the transcriptionist, but you just can't accept the pairing of the work "aware" with the single word response "No.", can you?

: Easily (none / 0) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 10:11:05 AM EST

Were you aware of the reports that the e-mails existed? Yes.
Were you aware of the e-mails themselves? No, I never saw them.
It is ducking and weaving, but it is NOT lying.

Is'ism (none / 0) (#12)
by Gisleson on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 10:26:32 AM EST

Once you start nuancing "is," you've lost the argument. Emanuel needs to cool off and back bench for a while. Now that we're in the majority, we just don't need his brand of virulent partisanship.

: You think? (none / 0) (#16)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 11:07:41 AM EST

Well I don't.

OK, it's not a lie... (none / 0) (#25)
by desertswine on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 12:15:46 PM EST

it's a deception (#2).

lie 2 (l)
n.

A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression

Defintion 2 (none / 0) (#26)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 12:45:44 PM EST

is absurd. By that definition, civility itself is a lie.

Please.


Lawyer: deception and civilily? No difference. (1.00 / 1) (#29)
by jerry on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 01:30:39 PM EST

One reason (amongst many) that people hate lawyers is that a lawyer will attempt a rebuttal with the argument that there is no difference between deception and civility.

Well ludicrous arguments beat having to admit you were wrong any old day. Enjoy your comparison with Althouse.


: Bah humbug (none / 0) (#30)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 01:35:35 PM EST

You really need to stick to sbstance because this lawyer is growing a powerful dislike for you manner of argument.
No fact, not logic and a lot of attacks.
I personally have no use for you in this thread.
I won't respond anymore.

This whole thing is percolating (none / 0) (#42)
by shpilk on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 01:55:47 AM EST

and the #1 heat-seeking political missile doesn't know about it?

Democratic staffers are sending these e-mails to news outlets, but no one is letting Rahm in on it? Information about the opposition, dynamite like this? This takes 'out of the loop' right into outer space.

Too many other people, pages as well as some of the handlers, some of them Democratic pages already had knowledge of something going on with fancy pants Foley, and if it were anyone else who was laid back about his job .. but not rocket Rahm.

I'm sorry, but that string of plausible deniability, well it is being stretched to the breaking point. Rahm is too good of a study on the weakness of the opposition to not pick up on this.

His out could have been knowing about the e-mails but not the IMs. But he denied any knowledge at all.

It's over.

Sometimes you get the bear, and sometimes the bear gets you.
This is one of those times.

et al (none / 0) (#46)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 05:22:02 PM EST

You know, your whole position brings back the memories of the past.

Guess the Demos haven't changed.

No difference (none / 0) (#47)
by jondee on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 05:38:24 PM EST

Civility is just another means to an end for some people.