Mother Jones was the first publication to point out the obvious significance of the recording of Kurt Volker's conversation with Giuliani. -- that Volker lied to Congress.
I must say, though, the article shows an extraordinary reluctance to come right out and us the "L" word. The number of euphemisms for "lie" in the article is something remarkable.
The euphemisms begin with the headline, "A New Giuliani Tape Shows a Key Witness Didn’t Testify Accurately in the First Trump Impeachment." Translation -- he lied. The first paragraph states that the tape, "undercuts the veracity of his claim." Translation -- he lied. House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff calls Volker's testimony “a disingenuous revision of history.” Translation -- he lied. CNN's report "shows that Volker’s account was not true." Translation -- he lied. The article also calls Volker's testimony "misleading" and refers to "information he failed to disclose." There is only one solitary use of the "L" word in the entire article -- a quote from Just Security right before Volker's public testimony stating that “it appears that Mr. Volker lied to Congress in violation of federal criminal law” during his private depostion.
The authors of the article are a veritable thesaurus. Why the reluctance to come right out and accuse Volker of lying? I don't know for sure, but my guess would be that, since Volker was under oath, any open accusation of lying would be an accusation of the crime of perjury and might open Mother Jones to a libel suit. This article (citing the Mother Jones article) points out all the hyper-technical constructions Volker might use to defeat a perjury charge.
No comments:
Post a Comment