PERISHING FROM THE EARTH: A peculiar thing happened last evening on Lawrence!

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2017

Part 2—Also, last Friday night:
A peculiar thing happened last Friday night as Lawrence O'Donnell conducted his "cable news" program.

That very morning, the original report about Roy Moore's alleged assault on Leigh Corfman had appeared in the Washington Post.
It had appeared on line the previous day. Lawrence had assembled a panel to discuss the Post report.

That afternoon, Moore had been interviewed on Sean Hannity's radio program. As shown below, he flatly denied ever having known Corfman.

As Lawrence started the segment in question, he played a piece of audiotape from the interview, then introduced his guests. At this point, The Crazy hadn't started:
MOORE (11/10/17): I don't know Miss Corfman from anybody. I never talked to her, never had any contact with her. Allegations of sexual misconduct with her are completely false. I believe they're politically motivated. I believe they're brought only to stop a very successful campaign, and that's what they're doing.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

O'DONNELL: Joining us now, David Frum, a senior editor for The Atlantic, and Jennifer Rubin, conservative opinion writer at the Washington Post.

Also with us, Barbara McQuade,
former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan and professor of law at the University of Michigan. She's also an NBC News and MSNBC legal contributor.
Lawrence began his segment with that chunk of the audiotape. Then he introduced his guests. You can watch the whole segment here.

Plainly, Lawrence had assembled an all-star panel. On the other hand, the children were deeply entrenched by this time in one of their famous stampedes.

Result? When Lawrence turned first to Professor McQuade, something peculiar happened. We'll highlight the peculiar things the professor oddly said:
O'DONNELL (continuing directly): And Professor McQuade, I want to go to you first, just on your courtroom experience and evaluating the credibility of witnesses.

And jurors are told that they should use many elements in evaluating witnesses, including their bearing, what they're picking up from them in their testimony. We couldn't see Roy Moore's face today. That would have helped a lot, it would have helped the jury.

But based on what you heard today, and with reference to some of the inconsistencies that I just highlighted, what was your assessment of that as testimony?

MCQUADE: Yes, and jurors are told they're supposed to just use their common sense in assessing witness credibility.

What I heard him say is he doesn't recall whether he ever dated an underage girl at the age of 14. You know, you "don't recall." Maybe you don't recall what you had for dinner three weeks ago on Tuesday. That seems legitimate.

But you "don't recall" whether you committed statutory rape or, I guess, sexual misconduct with a 14-year-old? That's not a kind of thing you don't, not, you know, you don't recall. It would be an unequivocal "no" if it's something that you've never done. To say "I don`t recall" means "I might have."
Say what? Lawrence was relying on McQuade's vast experience and her unparalleled skill. But when he did, he received a peculiar reply.

Let's be fair to Professor McQuade. In complete fairness, was on an important stampede this day, along with the rest of the children.

McQuade was on a major stampede. But when she reported "what I heard him say," she certainly wasn't reporting what Moore had said in the excerpt of the interview Lawrence had just played.

What she said was highly pleasing, but it certainly wasn't what Moore had said in that interview excerpt:

Rather plainly, Moore didn't say, in that excerpt, that "he doesn't recall whether he ever dated an underage girl at the age of 14." He certainly didn't say that he didn't recall "whether he committed statutory rape or, I guess, sexual misconduct with a 14-year-old."

The gentleman hadn't said that. Professor McQuade made thrilling remarks. But rather plainly, she wasn't describing what Moore had said in that chunk of the interview.

Indeed, and just as a matter of fact, she was describing remarks Moore hadn't made at all that day. In fairness, this is the kind of thing which routinely occurs when the children, some of whom are law school professors, stage one of their patented cable stampedes, thereby thrilling the customers and driving up corporate profits.

If we plan to deal in the truth today, Moore hadn't made those remarks at all—and Lawrence, of course, understood this. Result? He proceeded to correct the professor, without ever telling the customers that she was being corrected:
O'DONNELL (continuing directly): Well, he is saying that he—he is absolutely denying everything that happened with the 14-year-old. And of course, that's the one where if it was in the statute of limitations, the legal jeopardy would be very severe.

He is saying that—he is saying he doesn't recall if he dated the other girls. But in the earlier part of his testimony, he seems to be saying he did date the other girls because, you know, you should listen to them. They say that we didn't have sex.
"Well," Lawrence thoughtfully said. From there, he proceeded to correct the professor's wild misstatements (while making a minor error himself), without directly telling the customers that he was doing that.

(It's a standard cable move, one that was perfected by Professor Hartmann when she corrected Rachel, without seeming to correct Rachel, after Rachel erred, then almost seemed to maybe possibly tell a rather ginormous fib, about the nature and the extent of the gender wage gap. On cable, you're allowed to correct a guest, even perhaps to correct a host. You may even feel you have to do that. You just can't seem to be doing that. Any conduct which looks that way is of course disallowed.)

There! Lawrence had restored a bit of order to an otherwise uncertain world. Soon, though, he turned to Frum, inventor of the "axis of evil" phrase, and the chaos started again.

Frum is normally very sensible—and he's even Canadian! He's long been forgiven for his role in pushing the war in Iraq, which no one actually cared about in the first place. (He semi-explained his mistake in 2013, at the start of this CNN piece.)

Normally, Frum is sensible, perfectly sane. But even mild-mannered Canadian pundits were on a stampede this day:
O'DONNELL: David, I can't recommend to people enough how much they should re-read that article, if they have to, in the Washington Post.

FRUM: You know, Judge Moore could have said, "I never met Leigh Corfman in my life." Or he could have said, "I met her in the courtroom. I talked to her there, yes. I was never alone with her in my life."

That's not what he said. He said, "It didn't happen that way," and then he said, "I never committed sexual misconduct with her."

Well, sexual misconduct, that's an opinion. You know, different people may have different views about what constitutes misconduct. Even there, there isn't a denial. And of course, Leigh Corfman's story is enormously credible.
Ironically, Lawrence started by saying that people should read the Post report, presumably to get clear on the facts. He then threw to Frum, who followed Professor McQuade in grossly misrepresenting what the stampede's target had said.

"Judge Moore could have said, 'I never met Leigh Corfman in my life?' " We hate to be the killjoys here, but that's exactly what Moore had said! Indeed, he had said it quite plainly on the audiotape which started this ludicrous segment.

This time, Lawrence didn't bother correcting his guest's peculiar misstatements. Instead, he seized on a later point Frum made, declaring that it proved that Moore had staged the attack.

This was a very strange segment. But so it has gone, for several decades, when the children stage their stampedes.

(In 1999 and 2000, one such twenty-month stampede sent George W. Bush, and Frum, to the White House, with disastrous results. Late in that campaign, in October 2000, Lawrence played a remarkable role in that twenty-month stampede, in which the children acted out their animus against Clinton, Gore and Clinton. People are dead all over the world because people like Lawrence did what they did, though it's abundantly clear by now that no one ever actually cared.)

By now, we'll guess it's highly likely that Moore was perhaps misstating the facts when he declared that he had never met Corfman. We base that on yesterday's presentation by Beverly Young Nelson, the "deplorable" who described a sexual assault conducted by Moore in 1977.

In matters like these, the second testimony will often be more dispositive than the first, at least for those who aren't stampeding. But we aren't here to evaluate Moore. We're here to evaluate Lawrence himself, along with the rest of the children.

What in the world explains the strange things said on Friday night's program? First the professor, then the Canadian, grossly misstated what Moore had said—what he said on the audiotape Lawrence had just finished playing!

The first time, Lawrence staged a disguised correction. The second time, he simply launched an attack. As this puzzling behavior occurred, 1.751 million customers were being subjected to the latest peculiar nonsense.

That said, the bullshit was general in recent days as the children staged their latest stampede. The very essence of our society, indeed of our species, is called into question by people like these, and Lincoln keeps asking his question:

If the children plan to behave this way, might government of the people perish from the earth? At least in its current form in our large continental nation?

Can our nation survive if the children plan to behave this way? We're not sure, but last night, Lawrence started his program with the latest highly peculiar statement, the latest strong dose of The Crazy.

We'll start tomorrow with that strange statement. From there, we'll discuss the logic of the "can't tell the difference" brigade, as they assail the vile misconduct of the "if true" crowd.

Tomorrow: The editors at the Washington Post can't seem to tell the difference

27 comments:

  1. Innit enough on this subject, Bob? No one outside the lib-zombie community cares about Mr. Moore's personal affairs 40 years ago, and clearly the zombie community here gets seriously overexcited...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mao is correct. Sexual predation doesn't matter to the Right. It's how you know they're "anti-Establishment".

      Delete
    2. Child sexual molestation is not a "personal affair." It is a crime against another person. The Alabama community cared enough about it to make it illegal.

      Delete
    3. Кина развија хиперсоничну нуклеарну летелицу названу Драгон (Змај) који може да достигне брзине до 12.000 километара на сат. О овој летелици снимљен је и документарни филм иза кога стоји Комунистичка партија Кине.

      Delete
    4. None of this is "child sexual molestation."

      Interesting too how the MSNBC crowd completely dropped their "pedophilia" and "child molester!" language after Saturday. The lawyers obviously warned them.

      I have problems with the Gloria Allred events of yesterday. The tears and obvious embellishments ( "I was afraid for my family!") seriously harms the credibility.

      Delete
    5. 11:48 PM,
      Agreed that Allred's client's family should not fear Moore being a Senator more than any other Alabaman or American. Not saying they shouldn't fear it (they should), just no more than any other American should fear it.
      He's a religious cuckoo, who shouldn't be anywhere near the levers of governmental power.

      Delete
    6. It sickens me the way men assume that women's tears are false, put on. When you recall something traumatic the memory comes with the emotions of the time, no matter how long ago that was. Most adults cry when remembering deaths of loved ones, abuses of childhood, losses of the past.

      Gloria Allred has a pretty good record of representing women with legitimate, not manufactured claims. She can pick and choose her cases. She would have vetted this one.

      I am also sickened by men who consider a 14 year old a woman instead of a girl. The word child refers to non-adults. If I ask how many children you have, you include the 14 year olds as well as the 6 year olds. If you have children who are now of age, you refer to them as adult-children or grown children. Girls of 14 are not adults and calling them post-pubescent doesn't change that.

      Perhaps this is part of the trouble -- men who haven't learned the distinction and who think that if a girl looks sexy to him she must be fair game. Men who think these rules are arbitrary and can be disregarded when they are inconvenient because girls date boys their own age, don't they? This is what sex-ed should be talking about, obviously.

      But predators will find a way to mentally justify their actions. I just didn't realize Somerby was on that side of the fence.

      Delete
    7. Mao, you seem to love talking about this zombie community, apparently consisting of liberals and democrats. But there are no such thing as zombies (though if anyone was one, you'd think it was Mike Pence). But aside from whether you are justified in characterizing so many as 'zombies' I agree with what you once said - the discussion should be more about actual policies. What effect will proposed policies have? who will benefit and who will be harmed? That ought to be the main focus. So, that being the case, did you come up with these theories of economic nationalism or "sovereignism" on your own? Are these theories different that national socialism? and where might someone curious about what the hell you are talking about locate information about these supposedly valid theories, which for some reason you think "Bone Spurs" will advance?

      Delete
    8. Hi AC,
      thank you for your comment.

      "did you come up with these theories of economic nationalism or "sovereignism" on your own?"

      Not sure what you mean by this. And, whatever that means, why would it matter?

      "Are these theories different that national socialism?"

      You said something about 'actual policies', and immediately you're into usual zombie-style bullshit? Wtf?

      Hey, two can play this game: is liberalism the same as nazism? Y'know: they both care about 'race' a lot, and have their favorite 'oppressed' 'races' and their bad 'oppressor' 'races'...

      Delete
    9. 1:31 PM,
      Don't get huffy. "No, I'm a troll", would have sufficed.

      Delete
    10. Mao, sorry to offend you, but national socialism wasn't just about genocide and virulent anti-Semitism, but it was about "Deutschland uber Alles", which seems to have some similarity to "America first"), but forget that. I googled "sovereignism" and didn't get anything that seemed to resemble your schtick,. So what is sovereignism or economic nationalism? Why do you think it's the way? where can I find out about it (I'm curious, but naturally quite skeptical).

      Delete
    11. I'm not a liberal, so you can't 'offend' me. I was just pointing out that after saying that substance is importing you immediately switched to names, and now to slogans.

      As for 'sovereignism', it's not a 'grand plan' or 'grand idea' of any kind. You shouldn't concentrate of that. It's simply a way to resist the ongoing liberal globalization project, the hegemony of transnational capital. Google that one.

      Delete
    12. You sounded pretty offended. It seems stupid to assert that non-liberals are immune from being offended, but who cares. I'm hung up on your claim that globalization is a "liberal" project. Some "liberals" or Democrats to the extent they are"liberals" for example voted in favor of NAFTA, but a lot more conservatives, i.e Republicans did. What measures are to be taken to overcome this hegemony? tariffs? walls? expulsion of undocumented aliens? appointment of judges like Gorsuch? How does Trump's and GOP's tax plan or abolition of Obamacare advance this? How is Trump clamping down on 'banksters?' Aren't all these types of disputes unresolvable? - depending on what you do some will win and some will lose.

      Delete
    13. Economic globalization definitely is a liberal project, google will help you with that. Typical politicians, Democrats and Republicans, represent and advance interests of the liberal-globalist elite: banks, hedge funds, large multinational corporations. Democrats, since they organized the DLC, have been more effective and consistent than the Republicans in facilitating it, imo.

      How to oppose it? Sovereignism, populist politics. Economic populism especially. What exact form it may take I don't know. Tariffs - definitely. Preventing both offshoring and domestic exploitation of undocumented workforce - definitely. No question about that.

      Delete
    14. You answered some questions (not agreeing that this is mostly liberal democrats - I did google, the bad guys are identified as "neoliberals", different from liberals. And I'm not sure who winners and losers would be if your philosophy prevailed - could be disastrous) - but you avoided some of the questions. You think Trump is the enemy of the banksters and the globalists? Just because they, or some of them might have antipathy toward him? I don't see where you are coming from, other than a nihilistic quasi-fascist populism, perhaps.

      Delete
    15. I know that Trump was elected on an anti-globalist populist platform and that he's hated by the establishment. 3 days after his inauguration he withdrawn from TPP. Nafta is being renegotiated, and hopefully will get cancelled. Looks okay so far, but we'll see. If Trump sells out or gets removed, there will be someone else; the conditions are ripe.

      As I already said, I don't care about your sanctimonious labels for everything that doesn't fit zombie talking points you internalized. Call it what you want, deplorable-nihilistic-fascist-racist-misogynistic-populism is fine with me.

      Delete
  2. Here is a partial explanation of the memory failures of these guests. First, Somerby asks why they got it wrong when Lawrence had just played an excerpt from the audiotape with Moore's denial. That excerpt is a small part of a larger audiotape which the guests presumably heard before going on the air. That tape includes discussion of his relationships with the three other girls. He discussed knowing or not knowing them and what he did or did not do with them.

    If these guests had only heard the brief denial at the beginning of Lawrence's interview with them, they wouldn't have been confused about what Moore said. But they heard more and those different discussions and denials create memory confusion (interference). That's how reasonable people wind up saying incorrect things. Throw in the fact that they were perhaps heard just before going on the air, when they may have been nervous and focused on other things, and that can create more confusion. Somerby is sitting comfortably at home, under no pressure. That's how quiz show contestants miss easy questions that the audience at home gets without difficulty. Pressure to perform. But Somerby has to be snide about this professor's qualifications as a trial consultant. He is still an ass.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But they do it all the time. And they get LOTS of things wrong (like the "five" accusers of sexual misconduct, and the "thirty" corroborators who weren't at all.)

      No, they're all pumped up with a specific slant, and nothing's going to stop them. It's depressing.

      Delete
  3. Seems to me there is a virtual stampede of victims telling their stories against this guy. So many that it doesn't matter what Lawrence did or didn't say on his show. The latest news is that people in the community remember Moore being tossed out of the mall after harassing teen girls. That is not normal behavior for a D.A.

    Why is Somerby working so hard to portray this as liberal railroading of a possibly innocent man? When a man identifies strongly with a wrongdoer it suggests that he is worried about his own actions and the possibility that he too might be considered a bad actor. If Somerby can get Moore off the hook then he himself is similarly exonerated. Maybe Somerby just lusted in his heart after some underage girl, or maybe he too wanders the malls seeking "love." We can't know, but it is very strange that he is working so hard to suggest that Moore is just an average guy with no bad habits and that the fault is this so-called liberal stampede against him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why is everyone always so eager to believe these stories without question? That's the better question.

      The mania being exhibited by MSNBC over this on Friday and Saturday was appalling.

      I'm glad Bob's saying something about it.


      Delete
    2. People don't read these stories without question. They weigh in their own minds the likelihood that Moore's accusers are telling the truth and Moore's denials are self-serving.

      Men who behave badly with women rely on their silence to get away with their predation. They repeat their behaviors over and over because no one speaks out against them. They use intimidation to achieve that silence. Women are often too embarrassed to say anything. They aren't sure how much they contributed to the situation (by going out with the guy, by liking him at first, perhaps by encouraging his attention). The guys tell them to keep quiet and use leverage. In this case, the fact that Moore was an adult and a District Attorney while the girls were children, would have made them believe his statement that no one would believe them. Guys often don't believe women's accusations against other men, even though they know guys do this stuff.

      Several credible people have said it was "common knowledge" that Moore was misbehaving with young girls, stalking them at the mall and at high school dances and football games.

      To consider Moore innocent, you have to disbelieve so many people. To find Moore guilty, you only have to disbelieve Moore, the person with the most to gain by lying.

      Bob can say what he wants, but he becomes more ridiculous the more he persists in defending the possibility of Moore's innocence.

      Most adult men don't approach very young women (girls of 18 or 19) explicitly because they don't want to find themselves in this kind of situation. Maybe Moore thought he was bulletproof. Many adult men don't find young girls that appealing because, even though they might be beautiful, they have little to talk about and their ignorance is annoying in day-to-day life. Parents have enough trouble with young teen girls that the idea of a grown man considering her a prospective life partner is ludicrous. So it is clearly about the sex. And that's where Moore should have shown restraint.

      His over-the-top Christianity looks like an overcompensation for the sins of his youth. I think Freud called this Reaction Formation. It isn't unusual in evangelicals.

      Delete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. AnonymousNovember 14, 2017 at 10:56 AM -- I like your explanation and would add another possibility. Guests may have been relying on other people's paraphrase of what Moore said.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Like you relying on Breitbart for what Moore said.

      Delete
    2. In other words, no one reads the material.

      It's obvious the MSNBC crowd didn't read the Post article, because their descriptions of it bear little resemblance to the contents. Even the Breitbart articles on the subject are more in tune with the Post (contrary to received opinion, Breitbart's not that bad any more -- their articles on Moore are more balanced than you'd think.)

      Anyone actually READ Breitbart lately?

      Delete
    3. You don't have to wade in the filth to know it is dirty.

      Delete
    4. Actually, some of the Breitbart articles are sympathetic to the women. More than I am, really. I have doubts about all the tears, and why no one has made themselves available for searching interviews.

      You'd never know this though from received opinion. And they're quite well written as well.

      Delete