More on Emanuel's Non Denial Denial

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 02:00:15 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

A followup to this discussion. In realtime, Bob Somerby and I had similar reactions to Rahm Emanuel appearance with George Stephanapoulos:

Meanwhile, we chuckled a bit when we stopped by The Lake and read this post about Rahm Emanuel. In the following exchange on Sunday’s This Week, Rahm gave a classic non-denial denial when asked if he had known about Foley’s misconduct:
STEPHANOPOULOS (10/8/06): All week long, there have been suggestions by—on talk radio and by Republicans and their allies that this was perhaps a Democratic dirty trick. And I just want to ask you plainly, did you or your staff know anything about these e-mails or instant messages before they came out?
EMANUEL: George, never saw them. And I'm going to say one thing, let's go through the facts right here.

PUTNAM: But were you aware of them? Didn't have to see them.

EMANUEL: Never saw them. Let me go right through the facts. One, Brian Ross, who broke the story on your network, said it came from a Republican source. Very unusual to do that. Fact two, The Hill paper said it came from a Republican source. All the Republicans and staff people are coming forward are Republicans. Mark Foley, who wrote the e-mails originally, at the bottom of this whole problem, Republican. The leadership of the Congress, from Tom Reynolds to John Boehner to Speaker Hastert, who can't come on this show—

STEPHANOPOULOS: So you were not aware and no involvement?

EMANUEL: No, we never saw them. No involvement and she said not anything, George, and what the fact is, this is—

PUTNAM: Was there an awareness? Was there any awareness?
EMANUEL: Never saw them. The first time I ever saw these things, right here when Brian Ross broke this show and when the Post had the story.

On it’s face, that’s a world-class non-denial denial. Putnam kept asking Emanuel if he was “aware” of Foley’s conduct—and Emanuel kept sticking to a narrow, non-responsive reply. (Ditto for Stephanopoulos’ original question, in which he asked if Emanuel “knew anything” about the e-mails before they came out in the press.) That suggests an entirely unsurprising possibility—the possibility that Emanuel did know, in some way or other, that Foley had been misbehaving. He kept saying he hadn’t seen the e-mails. But he kept refusing to say that he hadn’t been aware.

Folks, it is wrong to call this a lie and that is my point here.

< Monday Open Thread | Falling Up >

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.

More on Emanuel's Non Denial Denial | 27 comments (27 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Haahahaha (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by squeaky on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 02:51:36 PM EST

Is avoiding a question deceiving?
Yes, pass me the mustard.
Really? How about refusing to answer a question, Is that deceiving?

Sorry BTD, I was trying to get a hot dog ready to eat.

Intentions (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 05:34:25 PM EST

Really? How about refusing to answer a question, Is that deceiving?

It really comes down to intentions. Did Rahm intend the questioner to believe that he was refusing to answer, or was his intention to mislead the questioner. It seems pretty obvious it was the latter.

: Hmmm (none / 0) (#19)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 07:11:53 PM EST

I think not. I think the questioner would have to be pretty dim not to see his question was not answered.

A lie? (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by LarryE on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 07:20:43 PM EST

A lie, I have long maintained, is a statement made with the intent to deceive.

By that definition, did Rahm lie? Clearly, he meant to give viewers the impression that he had answered the question when just as clearly he had not. So yes, he lied. Without question.

What is lying? (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Pete Guither on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 07:51:06 PM EST

Partly because of this Republican administration, I have reviewed my analysis of the definition of lying.

Because of my drug war research, every day I work with the crap that comes out of the ONDCP and the DEA, and Oh boy, do they like to "technically" tell the truth, while purposely attempting to deceive.

For example, they know that even heavy marijuana use has been shown by scientific study to not cause lung cancer (in fact, to a small degree marijuana smokers are less likely to get lung cancer), so what do they say? "Marijuana has more carcinogens than tobacco." Technically true, but in context it's a lie by implication. This kind of tactic is used every day, and yes -- those of us who are well educated in drug science know exactly the games they're playing, but the press and the public are regularly hoodwinked.

To me, that's lying. And this is happening more and more throughout every part of the government. It is dangerous to our society. It is lying. And it shouldn't be given a free pass simply because it's part of the political gamesmanship.

Earlier you told me that you thought it was the Bush administration's incompetence that was the cause of our nation's illness. No, our country could survive that if it was operating properly. If the people we elected were more concerned about working for us than protecting turf and their power structures, the Bush administration could never have gotten away with what they've done. But people lied -- they played political games and we're paying the price.

So no, I have no more patience with this kind of activity and I call it by the name with which this behavior is most closely allied -- lying.

BTD, you act like a political operative with a loyalty to the Democratic party. That's fine. No problem, and you're probably quite used to the gamesmanship that goes on. But be aware that a lot of the people out here are sick and tired of it, and are desperately crying for a political structure -- any political structure -- that will disavow it.

Lies (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by Adams on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 11:30:42 AM EST

Anyone out there have kids? There are lies of commission and lies of omission. We all know this. Small children understand this. We teach our children honesty as a character trait, not as childish game of avoidance of responsibility.

Then there are the parsers and hair splitters. One of my brother's law school professors began the semester with this declaration: "Obfuscation is our bag." Maybe this is considered morality within the beltway, and among practitioners of certain professions.

Out in the real world, people are not looking for the absence of the (technical) lie. They're looking for positive qualities. Like honesty. My brother quit the law review and got a job in an all-night gas station for the rest of his academic career. When he finished law school, he drove a taxi. Said he met a better class of people.

The other team seems mostly to use denial and repetition of the big lie. Saddam has nucular weapons and he's helping terrorists. Things are going well in Iraq. If you don't support the war, you're helping terrorists. If you give us permission to torture people, and immunity if we do, we promise we won't. Tax cuts benefit all of us. The economy is just great. We're all just humble, self-abnegating public servants here.

Our team seems to go for the not-quite-a-lie lie. No, I didn't see those emails. I did not have sex with that woman. Depends on what sex is. I guess it also depends on what "have" means. What it really means is that an incredibly capable President will be remembered (and despised) by many people forever for moral failings rather than for his accomplishments.

Not everyone can, or wants to, parse a statement for multiple levels of its meaning or truthiness. But people understand the intent to deceive, and they know what honesty is. Quit playing games. It needs to stop.

But it is right, to (none / 0) (#1)
by scribe on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 02:12:49 PM EST

call it a p*ssing contest, and worthy neither of our time, nor the bandwith.

It's been said, and rightly, that the worst fights are in academia, because so little is at stake. This issue is quickly coming up into second place.

Fact is, even if Rahm was aware of the emails, the chain of reporting has, consistently, indicated it was Republicans who shopped the story to the press, went to the press with backup, and generally were the sources all along. The Dems may have heard rumors, but Capitol Hill is nothing if not a rumor factory and echo chamber. Even if Rahm and the Dems had perfect knowledge (which no responsible person is suggesting), they did nothing with it and left the Repugs to blow themselves up with the story. Having information and not using it, is as good as not having information at all.

Really, this whole story seems to be more of a Repug "we took a knife in the back" setup than anything else. They cannot stand the fact that they lost on the basis of the crappy job they've done and the corruption they personify and inherent in being one of them. So, they look for someone else to blame (and a point to rally around).

So what?

Lying (none / 0) (#2)
by squeaky on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 02:15:51 PM EST

Is Rahm a liar. Yes. Republicans are world class liars.

Smell test (none / 0) (#3)
by Gisleson on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 02:28:16 PM EST

Does Emanuel's parsimonious parsing of the truth pass the "would you be willing to defend him?" test? For me, no, not at all.

Given that all the facts are on our side on all the major issues, it behooves us to NOT act like Republicans in these matters.

And in my book, intent to deceive constitutes a lie even if it isn't technically perjurious (and I'm not convinced that he would have said it like that had he been under oath).

So don't defend him (none / 0) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 02:32:22 PM EST

I surely do not.

I object to what he did being referred to as a lie. Because it is not.

Or does beng accurate not matter? IF not, then why the fuss about the non denial denial?


I surely do not? (none / 0) (#11)
by jerry on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 02:59:15 PM EST

"I surely do not."

You are being disingenuous here.


No (none / 0) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 03:02:03 PM EST

Call me a liar, You know you want to.

Look. Maybe another day in another thread we can converse civilly.

Right now I am quite tired of your atta cks on me, on lawyers and on anyone who does not agree with you.

Please discuss this issue with others in ths thread.


: Don't put words in my mouth (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by jerry on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 06:55:35 PM EST

"Call me a liar, You know you want to"
Call yourself a liar if that's what you feel you are, but don't put words in my mouth -- that's just another way of your playing tricks on the readers by trying to smear and attack me when it is you doing the attacking.
If you review the other thread, the attack on you was a comparison to Althouse. Pretty mild stuff when you were posting how twisted my logic was and how dumb I am.
I know that to most people, "non-denial denials" is another word for lying. If you want to tell us that that's okay stuff for Dems to do, I say "feh, not in my name."
Ask a kid, "non-denial denial" is a lie.
Ask a high school student, same.
Ask a college grad, the same.
It takes a fine legal mind and a year or two of law school to argue with a straight face that "non-denial denial" is not a lie. What are you guys taught?
If this was a President "we never said we went in only for WMD" you would be screaming for his head. And in fact you have claimed that "the ultimate lie in this regard was about WMD, the "mushroom cloud" lie." In fact your own lie detector is off as the mushroom cloud statement could not even have been a lie, just as Yglesias put it, a "ridiculous assertion" and as Olbermann put it, GOP fearmongering.
I am sorry if you feel you are a victim when you find that the public dislikes lawyers, but blaming the public for being dumb is probably not your best strategy.
Enjoy your evening, and hopefully we can speak on another day.

Moreover (none / 0) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 02:33:22 PM EST

Is avoiding a question deceiving?

How come neither Somerby nor I were decieved?

I really do not follow the reasoning being employed here.


The purpose of the "non-denial denial" (none / 0) (#6)
by ShochuJohn on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 02:39:46 PM EST

You and Somerby are used to "non-denial denials" and are not fooled. Nobody would use "non-denial denials" unless somebody was fooled. The very name suggests deception. What other point do they serve?

"I was not misled, therefore the comment was not misleading" is a weak argument. Half-truths that are intended to deceive are also lying.

It provides (none / 0) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 02:43:55 PM EST

a frame of reference. It gets out the part you want - never saw the e-mail this could not have leaked it or made it part of a dirty tricks campaign, without allwoing for the distortions that would have come.

I simply disagree with what you are saying here. Indeed, that Greenwald was shocked to learn this was shocking to me.


One final question then: (none / 0) (#13)
by ShochuJohn on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 03:04:05 PM EST

Is what Rahm did here more, less, or the same level of lying/deceptiveness/framing the issue as W was doing when he somehow gave a lot of people the idea that Saddam and 9.11 were connected without saying so? Bear in mind my question is not about the results or the severity, but merely of the beliefs the politician's words created and whether that result was intended. If there is a difference between the two, what is it?


: I think utterly different (none / 0) (#14)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 03:15:54 PM EST

There the assertions were positive, i.e - there was a connection - no one had thought there was before.
Here the Foley story was not even an Emanuel story - that was an attempted deflection by the GOP.
OF course, the seriousness of the two issues is not comparable imo, but I took your question to be specific to the issue of deception.

Is avoiding a question deceiving? (none / 0) (#8)
by squeaky on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 02:43:58 PM EST

Yes, pass me the mustard.

: It is? (none / 0) (#9)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 02:45:06 PM EST

Really? How about refusing to answer a question, Is that deceiving?

Enough already (none / 0) (#15)
by HeadScratcher on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 03:23:35 PM EST

BTD, what are you trying to prove? You've spent a lot of effort on this and no one seems to be buying. Move on already...Though it is kind of fun to watch this go on and on...

: I did move on (none / 0) (#16)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 03:27:58 PM EST

Two posts since this one.

Right on, Pete. (none / 0) (#22)
by Che's Lounge on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 08:10:05 PM EST

They dance and dance, but there's no music playing. This is parsing worse than Tony Snow could ever imagine. Emmanuel better get his head out of his a** before he and the moderate Reyes types drag the party down (again). Remember, moderate Dems are just moderate Repugs with blue ties on. Meanwhile the soldiers continue to die.

Paging Dr. Dean. Dr. Dean to the debate room STAT!

(BTW STAT means Some Time After Tommmorrow)

How long did he wait? (none / 0) (#24)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 12:35:38 PM EST

Now that we know that he lied:

What did he know and when did he know it?

How long did he wait while Foley's acts continued?

If you have knowledge of acts that may be illegal and do not act, is there a penalty??

Illegal? (none / 0) (#25)
by squeaky on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 12:39:41 PM EST

You mean like the war in Iraq?


: Who?? (none / 0) (#27)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 05:13:09 PM EST

Nice troll. Nicer strawman.
What did he know and when did he know it?
And if he delayed, why did he wait?
Were others involved in the waiting?
If so, who??

BTD, I think you are wrong. (none / 0) (#26)
by Jakebnto on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 01:58:17 PM EST

Acts are what count. The act here is the "message" conveyed by Rahm's words. The message that he knew nothing specific about Foley. The message is untrue, as he did know about Foley with at least some specificity. He may not have had enough to pursue it with an intransigent Republican controlled Congress, or even to take it up with the page board, but he knew something.

The message was a lie. His words skirted the truth, but created the lie.

Jkae