Written by Mike Stark September 25th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
In tooling around the web, I’ve noticed a few folks suggest that John Boehner and Lisbeth Lyons have denied what I reported on the 23rd: that they are, or were, engaged in an affair.
In fact, I spoke to one relatively highly placed reporter in the legacy media that asked me what I made of their denials. That a DC media pro could be so credulous was particularly discouraging. So I thought I’d share my take on the non-denial denials.
Maybe it is because I was trained as a lawyer that I recognize Orwellian double-talk when I see it. Let’s look at the so-called denials.
First up: Lisbeth Lyons.
The only quote I’ve found so far came from the Rupert Murdoch-owned New York Post. This is what she told Page 6:
As you can imagine, I was stunned by such a question. I found it to be highly insulting, particularly as a female political professional, as well as unfounded. Beyond that, I have no further comment on the matter.
First of all, at the top-level, does anyone not read this and wonder what PR shop put that statement together? Does any real human being talk that way?
Let’s unpack the statement a little further. There’s actually very little of substance there; the only word could possibly be construed as a denial is “unfounded.”
It’s funny. The last time I heard anyone use the word “unfounded” was when I asked George Allen if he had “spit on or otherwise abused his first wife”. He trotted her out to issue a statement saying that my question was “unfounded”. . .
As you can see, “untrue” is not part of that definition. In fact, no “real person” uses the term unfounded, but it is a term of art for defense lawyers. Essentially, it means the evidence isn’t there to prove the case. It has nothing at all to do with whether or not the accusation is true.
Moreover, using the word “unfounded” allows Lyons to later claim that she was using the second meaning of the term (after the truth is born out). I guess she doesn’t want to be known as a liar and a home-wrecker.
Now let’s have a look at Boehner’s statement. Whoops! He hasn’t made a statement, has he? No, he hasn’t.
Instead, what folks claiming he’s denied the affair are hanging their hats on is the statement made by an anonymous spokesman.
The spokesman is a commonly deployed tool of DC political pros: by routing statements through a Communications shop, the principal never has to lie for themselves.
Anyway, here’s the statement from Boehner’s camp:
This is bullshit. The American people oppose Washington Democrats’ job killing, so their desperate liberal allies are resorting to outright lies. It’s low, and it’s dirty.
“This is bullshit” is ambiguous. Hell, I might think it’s bullshit if someone calls me out in public for having an affair, but that has no bearing on whether or not I was actually having an affair. It’d be “bullshit” because in my mind, it’s not very nice to expose my philandering.
Moreover, the spokesman says “desperate liberal allies are resorting to outright lies”. OK, I’m sure some are, but how about a specific denial of this affair? It would be really simple for Boehner to say that he had not slept with Lyons, or for that matter, any other woman that is not his wife.
So that’s where we are. Ambiguous double-talk from both principals. No firm denials from either. One should wonder why.
Another thing: With regards to Ms. Lyons in particular, if she is so concerned about her professional reputation, wouldn’t she want to clear her name? Why not sue me . . .
Rightardia comment: It would not surprise us if a GOP operative planted this story to discredit Boehner. Many Republicans would prefer the next speaker be more aggressive and harder working than John Boehner who spends a lot of time on the links and may also drink too much.
source: http://www.starkreports.com/2010/09/23/560/
Subscribe to the Rightardia feed: feed: feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/IGiu
Powered by ScribeFire.
No comments:
Post a Comment