It seems that Shakespeare is the rage in the second impeachment trial of President Donald Trump. When House managers were forced to take down the words of House manager Rep. David Cicilline (D., R.I.) after Sen. Mike Lee (R., Utah) denounced them as false, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D., Md) declared “this is much ado about nothing.” Then Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) characterized the entire trial as “reminiscent of Shakespeare [in] that it is full of sound and fury, and yet signifying nothing.” MSNBC anchor Andrea Mitchell, however, missed the Bard memo and triumphantly declared that Cruz was wrong and mocked him with a tweet “@SenTedCruz says #ImpeachmentTrial is like Shakespeare full of sound and fury signifying nothing. No, that’s Faulkner.” She was joined in the effort by the Washington Post’s columnist Jennifer Rubin. In our age of rage, it appears that “Fair is foul, and foul is fair”… and Shakespeare is Faulkner and Faulkner is Shakespeare.
Mitchell’s mocking tweet met with scathing responses that including from Cruz who declared “Methinks she doth protest too muchOne would think NBC would know the Bard. Andrea, take a look at Macbeth act 5, scene 5: ‘[Life] struts & frets his hour upon the stage, And then is heard no more. It is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound & fury, Signifying nothing.'”
Yet, the telling of this tale was supported by Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin, who wrote, “and it says volumes about his lack of soul. That’s Any Thinking Person.”
Rubin has not confined her view of the “soulless” to Cruz. She has previously called for the expulsion of anyone who challenged the electoral votes of Joe Biden and to “burn down” the Republican party. (For full disclosure, I clashed with Rubin over her personally attacking me for a theory that I did not agree with in a column that I did not write. I also challenged her on an equally bizarre column where she wrote about my impeachment testimony and later column misrepresenting the holding in an appellate case involving Trump. That false account was never corrected the Washington Post.) Given Rubin’s controversial history of misrepresenting both testimony and actual court opinions, the Bard could hardly expect any exception. She is an example of the concern stated in MacBeth of whether we can ever return to reasonable commentary “Or have we eaten on the insane root, That takes the reason prisoner?”
For the record, Faulkner’s book “The Sound and the Fury” was a reference to Shakespeare’s Macbeth.
I am actually sympathetic to Mitchell. We are all working in the hair-trigger environment of social media and 24-hour news. We all make mistakes, particularly with Twitter. It happens. Moreover, despite the words of Lady MacBeth, it is not true that “What’s done cannot be undone.” Mitchell apologized and tweeted “I clearly studied too much American literature and not enough Macbeth.”
“…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
“…men…[will] do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what they forbid.”
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
– Alexander Hamilton
________________
The judicial branch must act in support of the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution.
The party being impeached and tried must be the actual president; the sitting president.
The party being impeached and tried shall not be a former president who is a private citizen.
________________________________________________________________________
All acts contrary to the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution must be voided.
Similarly, and as a probative, constitutional analogy, a candidate for Congress or the Senate must be merely a “citizen” and a candidate for president must be a “natural born citizen.”
An inferior form of citizenship is allowed for Congress and the Senate, while a superior form of citizenship is required for president.
The superior form of citizenship provides a “strong check” against foreign influence on the commander-in-chief (established by Jay/Washington).
The superior form of citizenship can only be established by the citizenship status of the parents of the candidate.
Every president before Obama was a child of two U.S. citizens, and the child of a father who was a citizen (Law of Nations, Book 1, Ch 19, Section 212).
Conclusions:
1. Justices of the Supreme Court must be impeached for egregious dereliction, negligence, abuse of power, and usurpation and execution of power by omission.
2. President Trump is a private citizen and cannot be tried or convicted after the recent impeachment.
3. Kamala Harris and Barack Obama will never be eligible for president.
The “manifest tenor” of the Constitution is clear.
Life of a nation must not depend on a “judicial branch”. It should depend on a Constitution written not by lawyers but by specialists in exact science who are familiar with what modus ponens and modus tollens are. No interpreting of the Constitution should be allowed or required. The English language did change but not to a degree that a modern men are not able to understand it.
It is irrelevant whether the language changes.
The law and constitution must be understood in the plain language of those who ratified it.
When we find that law and constitution flawed WE CHANGE IT, and it is then understood by OUR language.
I am prepared to listen to anyone on the left that can propose any other means of understanding law and constitution that produces results that all of us can know and trust.
No one can morally lose their property, their freedom or their life as a consequence of the whimsical interpretation of the law or constitution by a judge or 5 of 9 at one moment in time using an “interpretation” that is not rock solid in its logic.
We need not all agree on what the law SHOULD be, but we must nearly all agree on what it is.
“House managers were forced to take down the words of House manager Rep. David Cicilline (D., R.I.) after Sen. Mike Lee (R., Utah) denounced them as false”
No, they weren’t “forced” to do anything. They chose to retract a quote from a news story after Lee objected, and they stated at the time that they might reintroduce the statement at which point it could be debated.
Lee also did not specify what was false.
“No, they weren’t “forced” to do anything. They chose to retract a quote from a news story after Lee objected, and they stated at the time that they might reintroduce the statement at which point it could be debated.”
Correct, they retracted the claim to avoid being forced.
“Lee also did not specify what was false.”
Lee has public stated what was actually said, and it is exculpatory, not inculpatory.
It makes clear Trump was unaware of what was going on outside the capital at the time he talked with Tubberville and Lee.
But that does not matter.
Lee stated that the House manager’s quote was a misrepresentation – a LIE.
Lee was the person Trump was talking to – not some reporter at Wapo, or NYT.
There is not a source. There probably is no other source.
That inherently means the quote was “made up”.
Further the house managers have a duty to present the truth.
Prosecutors are not permitted to lie to the jury.
If they are unsure – they have an obligation to check it out.
They could have asked Sen. Lee prior to making a claim they could not substantiate.
Finally – they can try to take this up later. They will not – for obvious reasons
Absent far better evidence than some WaPo reporter, they will both lose, risk being sanctioned and damage the rest of their case more than they already have.
What this points out – why we have due process. hoWe do not determine Truth by listening only to those we like.
Truth is established when we hear everything and claims STILL up.
“Lee stated that the House manager’s quote was a misrepresentation – a LIE.”
Nope. As I pointed out to you earlier, he did NOT say that it was a lie. That’s YOUR word, not his.
“There is not a source.”
That’s false too. I cited a news report earlier that Lee’s spokesman had confirmed it on the record.
“Absent far better evidence than some WaPo reporter …”
I don’t know why you’re referring to the Post. The story was initially in the Deseret News, and AFAIK, that’s what Cicilline was quoting from. I gave you the link earlier.
“We do not determine Truth by listening only to those we like.”
Correct. We also don’t determine it by being as sloppy as you are with details.
I misremembered. I didn’t give the Deseret News link earlier. Here it is –
https://www.deseret.com/utah/2021/1/7/22218897/donald-trump-mike-lee-misdial-capitol-siege-congress-electoral-insurrection-moore-curtis-stewart
Why does it matter WHO provided a story that has no source and is oppinion substituting for fact ?
misrepresentation:
noun synonyms
falsehood distortion exaggeration fabrication falsification
misstatement untruth adulteration coloring
lie mutilation slant story stretch twist
false light not a true picture tall story
First – misreprentation means LIE. Sen. Lee somewhat politely accused the House managers of LYING.
Lets cut the crap and quit trying to pretend that Lee’s objection was less than it was.
You are MISREPRESENTING what Lee said why you claim he did NOT accuse house managers of LYING.
LIE is a synonym for misrepresenation
I do not know why you are fixated on what News outlet it came from.
What is TRUE is that it is spin not fact, and that the only thing ANY source can KNOW is that Trump talked to Lee and Tuberville.
Only Trump, Tuberville and Lee are actual sources. Therefore ANY outlet running a story that does not rely on one of them is mere speculation – not journalism, not evidence.
You are repeatedly the one that is sloppy.
You keep trying to make a distinction that does not exist between Lie and misrepresent.
You fixate on which media outlet was cited, rather than the more consequential matter that no outlet has a legitimate source, therefore the story is speculation – not news and certainly not evidence, and definitely not admissible.
Nor is this the only instance.
The house managers both edited and misrepresented a Tweet from one of the protestors.
It is commonplace for those like you on the left, to demand that all of us accept your interpretations of manipulated and often absent evidence – rather than the actual facts or first hand accounts.
I do not know what happened to Ofc. Sicknick. What I do know is the “official narative” has fallen apart – it is a LIE.
There is no evidence SickNick was struck with a fire extinguisher.
At this point there is no evidence his death was as a result of injuries sustained at the capital.
Only one person’s death is CLEARLY the result of events at the capital – Alishi’s and she was murdered by the police.
Democrats make a big deal that the protestors were armed.
That was their constitutional right. And none of them shot anyone.
The only person shot – was shot by the capital police.
The only person killed – was killed by the capital police.
And again – the narative offered regarding Alishi remains FALSE.
There were no representatives in the hall at the time she was shot.
She was not climbing through a broken window.
She was not committing a crime.
The left is all lies and misrepresentation.
“Lee has public stated what was actually said”
Yup. Now tell us how Lee’s public statement conflicts with anything Cicilline read. Here’s what Lee told reporter Bryan Schott via text message on the evening of Jan. 6 (all in italics, to make it easier to see what Lee himself put in quotation marks) –
Moments after the proceedings in the Senate were halted by the Capitol Police, my phone rang. The caller ID indicated that the call was coming from the White House. I thought it was Robert O’Brien, the president’s national security advisor, calling to update me on a question I had asked him about a security threat from Iran.
To my great surprise, it was not Robert O’Brien, but President Trump on the other end of the line. My heart started to beat a little faster, as I was convinced he could only be calling to argue with me about my reading of the Twelfth Amendment and Article II, Section 1.
There was a lot of noise and commotion in the room, but I thought I heard him say “How’s it going, Tommy?”
I said, “Mr. President, this is Mike Lee.”
“No,” he insisted, “I dialed Tommy’s number.”
“Mr. President, are you calling for Tommy Tuberville (my new colleague from Alabama)?”
“Yes.”
Anxious to hand the phone to someone else (and not have to argue with the president about matters at hand), I asked if he’d like me to find Senator Tuberville.
He said, “Yeah sure, that’d be great.”
I went and found Senator Tuberville, handed him my phone, and explained that the president would like to speak to him. I stood nearby for the next five or ten minutes as they spoke, not wanting to lose my phone in the middle of a crisis.
Then the Capitol Police became very nervous and ordered us to evacuate the chamber immediately. As they were forcing everyone out of the chamber, I awkwardly found myself interrupting the same telephone conversation I had just facilitated.
“Excuse me, Tommy, we have to evacuate. Can I have my phone?”
Senator Tuberville promptly ended the call and returned my phone to its rightful owner.
https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2021/02/11/what-sen-mike-lee-told-me/
You cited Lee’s remarks.
All they do is confirm that Trump called Lee trying to get Tuberville.
Anything beyond that in the news article is SPECULATION – it is NOT EVIDENCE.
Any claim beyond that is a LIE.
You asked what is a lie – anything beyond what Lee said .
Mitchell gets caught up in the game and gets publicly slapped. It happens. Yet, she does what not many do anymore, acknowledge and apologize. That was a classy move. I hope her small bit of crow brings her a moment of introspection, which is lacking nowadays by too many that should know better.
If she has actually appologized – which to my knowledge she did not – that would be classy.
An oblique reference to knowing Faulkner better than Shakespeare is not an appoligy, though it is an admission of error – those are not the same.
She Defamed Cruz. He is owed more.
But better than an appology would have been 5s of googling before tweeting.
We all do make mistakes. But most like this one are avoidable.
And she is a reporter – it is her duty to get it right.
A Shakespearean tragedy is what Turley’s blog has become.
Fish Head:
A Shakespearean tragedy is what Turley’s blog has become.”
*************************
Then exit, stage left! It’s where the unlicensed fool goes in King Lear (Act 3, Scene 6 – you know I love Lear). Apropos.
Take your own advice, mespo727272. Your description applies to you more than Bug.
Aninny:
I see you’ve finally climbed out of your rat hole. Do you work or is Soros your only source of income? Oh and sorry dear but I’ve been around since near the beginning as so long as there’s fools to flummox, knaves to knife and clowns to crush, I’ll be here.
no, you take it flea, it applies to you pestiferous bugs only
I disagree. Try this one: “Things fall apart [if] the center does not hold” The Professor is trying to educate all of us about the need for all of us to look deeply and differently at many of the things talking heads are tossing all around us.
No it is what this country has become.
Blame the left.
If this fails, next week the house can impeach Trump for eating hot dogs.
Much Ado About Trumpster
Don;t lie and there will be no Ado. e
Of course there would also be no impeachment and all three branches of government would be in the hands of Republicans again.
What Andrea Mitchell did here in her tweet arrogantly “mis”correcting Senator Cruz, is precisely how she conducts her interviews with Republicans or conservatives. She’s a hack through and through.
Mitchell’s error is consequential.
It is more than error.
It is a false accusation.
It is also careless – she is a journalist and should have checked before making an accusation.
It is also hubris.
It is also a sign of a poor education.
And finally it is bias – when has she corrected a Qoute from someone on the left ?
It is everything that is wrong about journalism and the left in a nutshell.
Even the fact that her attack is “much ado about nothing” is significant.
It is demonstrates the lefts reflexive careless attack posture over even the most trivial of things.
Mark Steyn ripped her a new one on his show tonight. It was glorious.
OMG, Turley you have the gall to complain that Jennifer Rubin misrepresented something you said? The impeachment managers were not “forced to take down” anything–they withdrew Lee’s comments and deferred the dispute about Lee’s own words to stop wasting precious time– a phony “dispute” calculated to divert attention from Trump’s egregious conduct. How ironic you make this claim in the same piece in which you accuse others of misrepresentation.
Turley: in your employment agreement, does Fox give you a list of journalists to attack, like Jennifer Rubin, Laurence O’Donnell, Chris Cuomo, for example, or do they request that you allocate your criticism as a “law professor” in certain percentages: i.e., 20% for attacking the WaPo, 10% for the NYT, 5% for going after CNN, 5% for MSNBC, and the rest to defend Trump, Cruz and Hawley, or do you get to decide these things on your own?
“OMG, Turley you have the gall to complain that Jennifer Rubin misrepresented something you said?”
Misrepresenting others has another name – LYING
Are you saying that Rubin is entitled to lie about Turley without complaint ?
“The impeachment managers were not “forced to take down” anything–they withdrew Lee’s comments and deferred the dispute about Lee’s own words to stop wasting precious time– a phony “dispute” calculated to divert attention from Trump’s egregious conduct. ”
They withdrew a significant claim. Worse they withdrew it because the person cited challenged it as a misrepresentation – a LIE.
Whether you like this or not – the prosecution backing down when accused of lying is a BIG DEAL.
It is about trust, or lack of trus
“How ironic you make this claim in the same piece in which you accuse others of misrepresentation.”
Not Ironic at all. We have a whole series of instances in which democrats, the media, the left have been caught LYING about serious matters.
With respect to your idiotic claim.
What is wrong with pointing out the LIES of others ?
As to those you listed – they have little fear of attack if they stick to the truth which is what we expect of journalists.
Some of us expect ‘truth’ and ‘facts’ from journalists. Democrats, however, expect ‘friendly journalists’ to carry forth their lies and repeat them ad nauseum as ‘truth.’
Amen and Awomen!
Irony is lost on you, so I’ll explain it to you: Turley was complaining about Jennifer Rubin allegedly misrepresenting something in the same piece in which he distorted what happened–the House managers withdrew Lee’s objection for consideration later on, to prevent Lee from disrupting the flow of their case. This was not an admission that he was right. There was nothing in Lee’s comments that was important or significant, much less critical, but you disciples will grab at any straw to divert attention away from Trump’s crimes. Lee’s “objection” was a diversionary tactic, sort of like how Clarence Darrow would insert a wire into a cigar that he had going prior to an important opposing witness’s testimony. The wire prevented the ash from falling, and it would get really long. The jury would keep watching the cigar, waiting to see how long the ash would get before it fell, which diverted attention away from the testifying witness.
“Irony is lost on you”
Nope, there is nothing ironic in this.
“Turley was complaining about Jennifer Rubin allegedly misrepresenting something”
Allegedly would not apply in this context. Further what Rubin wrote is known, What Turley wrote is known.
“in the same piece in which he distorted what happened”
Turley did not distort anything.
He analized it, you do not like his analysis.
He did not misquote the House Managers.
“the House managers withdrew Lee’s objection for consideration later on, to prevent Lee from disrupting the flow of their case.”
Please learn sentence construction – especially if you are going to rant about misrepresentation, Your statement above is misrepresentation. Hopefully the consequence of poor grammar.
The House managers withdrew EVIDENCE – as a consequence of Lee objection.
Put Bluntly Lee’s objection is that it is a LIE introduced as double Hearsay, in an instance were the actual witnesses are available.
That is both a legally valid objection to hearsay evidence, and an indictment of the House managers. Lee is not equivocating. He is saying the house manager’s claim is FALSE – a LIE.
I will be happy to bet you they will drop that claim entirely.
Should they try to bring it back, they will face the same objection, and they will lose. Both Sen. Lee and Sen. Tubberville are available.
They are direct evidence of Trump’s remarks. The House managers do not have direct evidence.
Further Sen. Lee is unequivocally saying that the House Manager’s have misrepresented – LIED, about the conversation.
This is a losing fight for the house managers, and an important one – they have burned their own credibility.
But you may beleive whatever you wish.
‘If we were in high school, I’d take him behind the gym and beat the hell out of him,’”
Biden,
That is an actual threat of violence.
This is closer to actual incitement to violence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v14EazTKyyQ
“This was not an admission that he was right.”
Correct – those on the left are incapable of admitting error.
Regardless, you really do not seem to grasp the significance of Sen. Lee’s Objetion.
Lee accused the House managers of LYING about something he was a direct witness to and they were not.
That is incredibly important. When a member of the Jury and THE first hand witness to an event accuses the prosecutor of lying, there is a very serious problem.
Using your cigar reference, Lee pulled out a cigar, lit it and ground it out on the house managers palm.
Lee objected that a quote the managers read from a newspaper account was not accurate. If he is correct, that does not make the managers liars. The managers quickly withdrew the statement, generously assuming he was correct and the newspaper wrong. Lapdog Turley’s interpretation of this event which includes a later recollection of the call incident which conveniently claims Trump was an innocent and disengaged bystander is predictable for him and demonstrates a pretend gullibility more accurately seen as an argument from a GOP lawyer pretending to be onjective.
“Lee objected that a quote the managers read from a newspaper account was not accurate. If he is correct, that does not make the managers liars.”
Yes, it does, Worse it is the equivalent to lying to a court.
While Prosecutors are not “under oath”, they are barred – both morally. ehtically and legally from putting forth false evidence.
This is quite simple – either Lee is lying or the house managers are. There is not some other possibility. There is no “innocent error” possible here.
You are free to beleive that Lee is lying – though that poses a problem because the House managers claim is about what Trump said to Lee, not a crowd. Only Trump and Lee know for certain what was said.
Regardless, the house managers may not legally, morally or ethically put on evidence they do not know to be true.
“The managers quickly withdrew the statement, generously assuming he was correct and the newspaper wrong.”
There is no generosity involved. Challenging Lee on this had little upside and enormous downside for the House managers.
We are in the midst of an impeachment where the issue is free speech and the House managers have already claimed there is no constitutional free speech protection from impeachment.
While it is unlikely that a democratic house would impeach the impeachment managers for lying to the senate, that does not preclude doing so.
All kinds of things that are unlikely because democrats are blind to their own misconduct could easily occur if they no longer controlled all of the federal government.
You are free to beleive whatever you want – but if you actually beleive Trump should be impeached – then you MUST impeach Schumer.
There is no innocent bystander Defence for Schumers participation in the riots outside the supreme court – he was there at the moment.
All that prevented worse that the Capital protests was the fact that the Doors to the Supreme Court withstood the efforts of protestors to break them down.
“Turley did not distort anything.”
He did. He said “House managers were forced to take down the words of House manager Rep. David Cicilline (D., R.I.) after Sen. Mike Lee (R., Utah) denounced them as false.” That’s false. House managers weren’t forced to do anything. The House managers willingly chose to withdraw the newspaper story in question and reserved the right to reintroduce it later instead of the Senate having to resolve it then, at the end of a long day.
Raskin: “The impeachment manager, Mr. Cicilline, correctly and accurately quoted a newspaper account, which the distinguished Senator has taken objection to, so we withdraw it…” Sen. Lee withdrew his demand that there be a vote on the issue.
You can listen to Raskin’s full statement with Lee’s interjection here, starting ~1:11:30 –
https://www.c-span.org/video/?508741-103/senate-impeachment-trial-day-2-part-4
“The House managers withdrew EVIDENCE – as a consequence of Lee objection. Put Bluntly Lee’s objection is that it is a LIE …”
Nope, Lee did not ever say that it was a lie.
The House managers also reserved the right to reintroduce the evidence later when there could be an informed debate about whether the unspecified statements were false.
“Lee accused the House managers of LYING”
He didn’t.
So you keep making this false statement. Are YOU lying or are you only making this false statement by mistake? (I’ll assume the latter, but I don’t know.)
Newspaper accounts are not evidence. They are not admissible in a court. You can cite them correctly and accurately all you want – it does not make them correct or accurate – and Raskin knows better.
Presenting false evidence is immoral, unethical and possibly illegal.
One of the reasons that Newspaper accounts are not evidence is because they are nearly always – as in this case hearsay.
They are not what happened – they are what someone SAYS happened.
Raskin had the opportunity to get the truth – he could have talked to Lee. He did not.
Lee objected to Raskin’s quote because it misrepresented the call. misrepresent is a polite way of saying LIE. Lee was being polite.
The remarks about entering it later are face saving nonsense.
Yes, Raskin can try again. Do you want to bet that he does not ?
A second attempt would be WORSE.
Raskin can plead incompetence today – i.e. not bothering to check a first person source. –
If he raises this again, he will be accusing Sen. Lee of lying by doing so.
And Absent better evidence than the person on the call – Raskin will fail.
.
I will be happy to see Raskin try again. But he is not that stupid
Was Raskin FORCED to withdraw ?
No, he had a choice. He could proceed and be found a liar, or he could retreat and just be thought one.
Will this be a big deal to the public ?
Probably not. The media will barely cover it and they will not likely address what it means.
Is this a big deal ?
Absolutely.
Sen. Lee just accused Raskin of lying to the Senate, and Raskin backed down.
“So you keep making this false statement.”
If my statement was FALSE – it would be a LIE.
It is not.
Sen. Lee accused Raskin of introducing evidence that misreprented the truth.
Lee accused Raskin of LYING
Misrepresent: Verb
Synonyms belie, fudge, manipulate, fake, falsify, cook, wangle, cheat, chisel
I personally do not know the truth of the Phone call. Nor do you, nor does WaPo, nor does Raskin.
Sen. Lee does.
“If my statement was FALSE – it would be a LIE.”
Maybe, but not necessarily. Only some false statements are lies. Other false statements are only mistakes.
“Sen. Lee accused Raskin of introducing evidence that misreprented the truth.”
Actually, he accused Cicilline. Lee’s claim was that statements had been attributed to him that were “not true.”
“Lee accused Raskin of LYING”
He didn’t. He also didn’t accuse Cicilline of lying. He only said that statements had been attributed to him that were “not true.”
YOU are the one who keeps saying that they lied. Sen. Lee never said that.
“Maybe, but not necessarily. Only some false statements are lies. Other false statements are only mistakes.”
Correct.
Mistakes made where there is a duty to truth are lies.
Offering argument as evidence is a violation of the rules of ethics.
Offering as evidence something you do not know to be both a fact and true is not a mistake it is a lie.
There are only two possibilities here.
Sen. Lee is lying, or the house managers are lying.
And the burden and the odds are that the house managers are lying
All the house managers are individually and collectively responsible for the evidence they present.
~true = false
False where you have a duty to be truthful is lying.
Or are you saying it is OK for the house managers to incompetently, or mistakenly present false evidence ?
Lawyers have a duty of candor to the court. That requires that they can not make sloppy mistakes.
Offering false evidence is immoral and unethical. It is LYING
“Misrepresenting others has another name – LYING”
Sometimes. Other times it’s a mistake. You frequently complain about others being too quick to make an accusation of lying, yet here you are doing what you condemn in others.
“they withdrew it because the person cited challenged it as a misrepresentation – a LIE.”
Lee only said that the unspecified statements weren’t true and should be stricken from the record pursuant to a Senate Rule. The statements were ones that Rep. Cicilline had accurately quoted from a news article. Sen. LEE never claimed the unspecified statements to be a lie, so why are YOU claiming them to be a lie?
“Misrepresenting others has another name – LYING”
Sometimes. Other times it’s a mistake.”
There MAY be some instances in which that is true – this is not one.
Raskin was not tweeting an oppinion. He was presenting evidence in a hearing and obligated to ethical standards – including not presenting false evidence.
Lee’s objection was subject to the same standards. Both had ethical, moral and possibly legal requirements of “candor to the court”.
There is little wiggle room in this.
One of them is LYING. Given that Lee was on the call, the burden is on Raskin.
“You frequently complain about others being too quick to make an accusation of lying,”
Incorrect. I have said nothing about how fast one should procede .
I have said that you should be certain before you accuse someone of lying.
To be perfectly accurate here – Either Lee is lying or Raskin is. I can not conceive of any way they can both be truthful.
Raskin does not have an out by blaming wapo – he has a duty of cador to the court. If WaPo is wrong – even innocently, Raskin failed to check before presenting evidence when he clearly was able to.
“yet here you are doing what you condemn in others.”
False, I have never said – Do not accuse others of lying – you are “misrepresenting” me.
I have said – when you accuse someone of lying the burden of proof is on you and it is high.
There are some minor twists in this particular instance – because Raskin was presenting evidence and therefore has a burden to assure his evidence is true.
To use a similar analogy If
X accuses Y of lying,
and offers no proof, and then Z accuses X of lying – the burden of proof remains on X.
“they withdrew it because the person cited challenged it as a misrepresentation – a LIE.”
“Lee only said that the unspecified statements weren’t true and should be stricken from the record pursuant to a Senate Rule. The statements were ones that Rep. Cicilline had accurately quoted from a news article. Sen. LEE never claimed the unspecified statements to be a lie, so why are YOU claiming them to be a lie?’
Formal logic:
False = ~True.
When you have a duty of candor – such as when presenting evidence
False = LIE!
Again – this is not a twitter battle.
There is no such thing as honest error when you are obligated to verify the truth of your assertions.
You have made ONE and only ONE point.
I can not know for certain that Raskin is lying. I can only be certain that either Lee is lying or the house managers are lying.
To be clear it is a lie to present evidence you do not know to be true when you have a duty to present truthful evidence.
It is not merely error.
I also know given the context that the odds of Lee lying are far less than the House Managers.
Lee Knows what was said to him first hand. Raskin does not.
Raskin took a flyer. and lost.
LOL that you know so little about this that you don’t even know it was Cicilline, not Raskin, who quoted the news account in question.
“False = LIE!”
Nope.
I’ll also point out again that Sen. Lee was not under oath when he made these statements. Let him be put under oath and questioned as a witness.
Sen. Lee is an attorney and he was making an objection in a proceding.
He has a duty of candor to the court.
Lawyers are not allowed to LIE in objections.
You seem to think that the only sanctions for misreprestation are for Perjury.
Klinesmith did not commit perjury – but he lied in a statement that was presented to a court as evidence.
All of the house managers are indiviually and collectively responsible for the evidence they submit.
Atleast one Tweet was altered and independently misrepresented.
These are all ethical and moral errors for the house managers.
I am not interested in debates about which of the house managers is more culpable than others.
They are ALL individually and collectively responsible for the veracity of evidence they present.
Senators are under oath during impeachment trials.
Whether Lee or anyone else is called as a witness is up to the senate.
Are you going to disbar the impeachment managers for presenting false evidence if Lee testifies under oath ?
Regardless, in this instance you do not need anyone under oath.
Neither the House managers nor the media can know what they claim to know unless Trump or Lee told them.
+10
Elvis
Natacha: “hey withdrew Lee’s comments and deferred the dispute about Lee’s own words to stop wasting precious time” LOLOLOL “Precious time.”
I’ll say this about you: you’re always good for a laugh or two!
Keep up the good work. I appreciate you confirming the utter lack of a case against a private citizen over whom Congress has no direct authority. If its not too much trouble, can you provide some of the terms of your employment agreement, even if only generalities like which foreign country it involves? Heck, even what continent would be a start. Thanks again for the entertainment.
Wally Cleaver: Hi Dad. I didn’t do anything. Ward Cleaver: Why do you say that? Wally Cleaver: Well, I don’t know, but, uh, you have that look on your face like somebody did something.
Shakespeare, they give themselves undeserved gravitas, they should have been quoting Jonathan Swift.
There is definitely some thing foul in Washington and it’s the Republicans who view a violent attack on the Capital engineered, planned and incited by the President as nothing. As it is now usual for you, Professor, you are happy run interference for them all.
There is something ‘rotten in Denmark’, so to speak. But it cannot be pinned on one party or the other. It’s bipartisan. It’s statist. And, the media is in cahoots.
There are problems with the GOP.
But the fundimental factor driving political polarization is the left.
I will be happy to attack Republicans when they seek to restrict theindividual liberty of citzens without justification.
But that is not common.
It is constant with the left.
The Patriot Act. Defending the actions of the NSA spying on Americans. Each party quietly hands off the ball when it is expedient.
“The patriot Act”.
Correct – Both parties deserve our disdain for that.
“NSA Mass surveilance”
While that is a consequence of the Patriot Act with BOTH parties deserve blame, the public LIES are specifically attributable to the Obama Administration, and Clapper and Brennan.
Try again. It’s the billionaires who own them all. Those are the enemy
Keep on evading this ultimate reality and hence keep on misunderstanding this charade
Sal
Prairie, your comment only serves to excuse the outrageous acts of Trump in staging a blatant coup attempt. Neither the Democrats or the media had a hand in it.
Let’s deal with one outrage at a time or we will deal with none.
Joe Friday
there was no “coup attempt.” A coup would look something more like it did in Myanmar. Tanks, APCs, troops, occupation.
Oh wait– that’s what the Democrats have there today to protect their farce.
Surely you have seen this video which gave a candid and humorous glimpse of it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6lqE_MQv8o
Sal Sar
A coup attempt ? How so ?
Every single thing Trump did was within the law.
We are in the midst of a coup that has taken over 4 years – but it is by the left not the right.
If you want to be taken seriously – if you want peoples trust FOLLOW THE LAW.
The 2020 election was inarguably lawless.
Trump could not have staged a coup against an illegitimate government – even if he tried which he did not.
Nor is this about Trump. It is entirely about the left and their dishonesty.
If you beleive in your hearts you legitimately won the 2020 election – why have fought tooth and nail against any inquiry or instigation ?
If you beat Trump fair and square – why are you so afraid of him ?
All this Faux Impeachment does is make it clear democrats do not beleive they actually won.
The events at the capital were not “nothing” they were a protest against a lawless and untrustworthy government.
While you are wrong on the facts, more importantly you are in trouble regarding the fundimentals.
When govenrment is not trusted, when it does not have the consent of the governed, insurection is justified, violence is justified.
We are not there yet, Nor do i know how close we are. But we are far closer than we were before the election.
Please read the Time article on the election. You can agree with every single tactic employed.
But note the article is by those on the left reveling in the tactics used to win the election.
This is not a hit peice done by the right. It is not Trumpist ranting – though the left has attacked Trump for the same claims the article admits.
You still have three serious problems.
The first is that whether legal or not, the tactics used undermined trust in government.
The second is that it is a very small step from justifying the tactics that are described in the article to justifying fraud.
The third is that whatever tactics the left engages – these will become the new norms.
I expect Republicans to retake the house in 2022.
I hope they impeach half the democratic party for violent speech.
JH:
Funny you loved it when BLM/Antifa did it! Make up your minds. Do you leftists love the country or just say so when it suits you?
They love Oceania and strive to make the US into it as quickly as possible.
And they do not grasp that tens of millions will resist that – Violently if necescary.
“Educated Men are so impressive.” W. Shakespeare “Romeo and Juliet”.
The Counselor wins his case yet again……crossing swords with Professor Turley comes with some risk.
We can all hear the sound of hot air swooshing from some very punctured ego’s.
Turley surely has a finely tuned Rapier like Wit.
Well Done! Professor Turely!
He cannot win by making false claims like “House managers were forced to take down the words of House manager Rep. David Cicilline”
You are correct – they were not FORCED. They had a choice.
They could have proceeded and been proven liars.
Quote what Cicilline said that you’re claiming is false.
Every single thing that went beyond the specifics that YOU cited that Lee explicitly said.
Now is the winter of our discontent.
“Wisdom and goodness to the vile seem vile.”
― William Shakespeare, King Lear
But if it were just this one instant, it would be forgivable. She has LIED way many more times than this. She should be fired. Rubin is a joke. A “so called” Conservative “Progressive Democrat”. That’s all WAPO has?? Sad. Just as bad as the Conservatives The New York Times claims it has.
We all make errors – that is somewhat acceptable.
But all errors are not the same.
Mitchel made a false accusation of error. That is much more serious that a misquote.
When you claim another person is wrong, the burden is on you to prove your case.
Worse, the error Mitchel accused Cruz of was small. The error she made was much larger.
A false accusastion is always worse than a simple error.
Awesome!
This column should make your employers at Fox, like, really really happy, Jon!
EB
What – in your world it is OK to make false claims others ?
This is simple. Cruz accurately cited one of the most famous lines in shakespeares most famous plays.
Mitchel and Rubin were not only clueless, but did not even bother a 5 second google search before making a false accusation.
Frankly this is what is wrong today in a nutshell.
Those on the left do not hink beforfe they act, hurl false accusations without checking anything first.
And generally do not know what they are talking about.
The source of “fake news” is the left news.
If a journalist is so ideologically warped and so poorly educated that she can falsely accuse an extremely learned republican senator of misattributing one of the most famous quotes in english literature, how can she be trusted on anything else ?
Do not lob accusations at others unless you are SURE.
A false acusation is more than an error,. It is a moral error.
You’re funny.
EB
“If a journalist is so ideologically warped and so poorly educated that she can falsely accuse an extremely learned republican senator of misattributing one of the most famous quotes in english literature, how can she be trusted on anything else ?”
100% exactly right. They cannot be trusted to deliver anything but The Party Line as dutiful servants to the propaganda of The Party.
Mitchell should have consulted her husband Greenspan. Not only did his guidance almost break the US economy, but he was alive during Shakespeare’s time.
😂😂😂 that’s a good one. We live in a time when willful ignorance on the left is a bonafide virtue. I honestly don’t know how we fix it, or if we can. These are not sane, reasonable people. We can project purported ethics on them until we’re blue in the face, they aren’t going to simply wake up enlightened or sane one day.
That is a good one! 😂. Greenspan was certainly wrong in his opposition to the regulation of derivatives. Brooksley Bourne had the last laugh on that one. It’s the arrogance of the political class!
The error of the Fed is well documented – interest rates too low for too long.
It should be self evident that there was no causation outside of govenrment – because nothing in Dodd Frank dealt with anything that the left claimed was a cause.
With specific respect to derivatives – most everything in the financial markets is near zero sum.
If someone loses on a derivative – someone wins.
Systemic failures are ALWAYS failures of valuation. They are not and can not be transactional
The financial crisis occured because we suddenly came to realize that we had created an $11T bubble in the value of housing.
With that realization we were all suddently $11T poorer than we were before.
The financial markets did not cause and could not fix that.
“the Barb could hardly expect any exception.”
A quite apt typo. The Bard’s words are a barb that prick the conscience if they are rightly heard.
Andrea Mitchell is a partisan hack. Jennifer Rubin is a truly ugly person, and I’m talking about her insides and outsides. And, to both of these women, the Bard would have this to say:
“You speak an infinite deal of nothing.”
“So foul a sky clears not without a storm.” — Shakespeare, King John; Act 4, Scene 2