Unspun Logo

My Guess?

Posted by Rick · April 21st, 2005 · 2 Comments

Andy Shaw over at ABC 7 in Chicago asks:

Hyde’s comments reflect what Democrats have been saying for years about the Clinton impeachment. It will be interesting to see what happens when Hyde’s comments hit the national media. — Andy Shaw, “Clinton impeachment was retaliation for Nixon, says retiring congressman” (April 21, 2005) ABC 7 Chicago.

Abbbbbbb – soooooooo – lutely nothing.

I’ll bet my first year’s salary as an attorney on it.

In fact, I can flat out guarantee it’s not even going to cause my Republican next-door neighbor to blink. Oh, and just to be fair? I’ll probably fall down in shock if one Democrat at the law school does more than shrug their shoulders when they hear the news.

Special thanks to Mark King for bringing the story to my attention.

Categories: Constitutional Issues


2 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Paul Willis // Apr 22, 2005 at 7:05 am

    I think the real quote is a little less newsworthy.
    Here is the quote from the article.

    “Andy Shaw asked Hyde if the Clinton proceedings were payback for Nixon’s impeachment.

    ‘I can’t say it wasn’t, but I also thought that the Republican party should stand for something, and if we walked away from this, no matter how difficult, we could be accused of shirking our duty, our responsibility,’ said Hyde.”

  • 2 Rick Horowitz // Apr 22, 2005 at 7:57 am

    What you’ve demonstrated is why I was right. You appear to be implying that Shaw twisted what Hyde said, but it looks to me like you’re ignoring what Hyde said.

    In my mind, for a prominent politician to suggest the possibility that one of the most expensive debacles of recent political history was payback for very real crimes is a serious indictment of the party that perpetrated it. If he’d been asked the question and said, “Nope. Didn’t happen that way,” I’d have actually never posted my comment at all. But that’s not what he said, is it?

    There’s a rule in evidence law that hangs on the idea that if someone remains silent in circumstances where you’d expect them to respond, this indicates their adoption of the statement(s) to which they didn’t respond.

    That principle makes sense to me. And Hyde didn’t just remain silent on this one; he went a step beyond by saying something, but not repudiating the idea contained in the question.

    And that would be newsworthy, if we actually cared. Instead we’re like lambs for slaughter. (Jeremiah 51:40.)

Leave a Comment