@1: Not a stretch at all. He's lied to the public and lied to reporters about his intentions. He's claimed that "it is inconceivable that one lawsuit could bring down the entire measure," while repeatedly petitioning the court to do exactly that.
It's still dishonest because of the way he frames it to the public. Instead of saying "I'm attempting to overturn the whole thing because of these problems," he says "I'm attempting to overturn these things." Is he lying? Enh. Is it dishonest. Hell yes.
This has actually been affirmed time and time again. It is not illegal for someone to lie unless they are legally obligated to tell the truth. (ie. in court after being sworn in) Even if this person is a public servant and the lie was told to the public, it is up to the people (and was implied to be the role of the media) to be able to discern fact from fiction and to hold liars accountable.
Years ago, I remember a Fox affiliate in Fla that took their ex-reporter to court. He did a report on how local car dealerships screw people and they decided on to show it. So he took the story else were and Fox sued. The court ruled that the station was within their rights to not show information that would hurt their bottom line of dealership ads.
4 gives a great legal explanation why it's allowed. Sadly, the media has no legal reason to tell us all of the facts either.
I would call it a victory for McKenna. It's not as if the Judge's finding regarding what was in the publicly filed briefs was a disputed finding. The ACA briefs say what they say, we've known that for months, and McKenna's lawyers were not arguing otherwise. All the Judge did was acknowledge what was already accepted public fact: that the ACA briefs sought the complete invalidation of the law, not just the individual mandate.
If you're McKenna, it would certainly be a loss if the Judge had granted the injunction. But that was a long shot. It would also have been a loss if the Judge went through and parsed the public statements, evaluated them, and determined that while they were misleading in isolation, or maybe somewhat misleading, they did not rise to the level of a violation. That would have been bad too -- a technical "win" but with the Judge criticizing his statements.
However, what the Judge did here was GREAT for McKenna. The Court basically held that no matter what McKenna says in public, no matter how false, a court cannot evaluate it at all and he is free to say whatever he wants without judicial oversight. If I'm McKenna, I'm pretty happy with that ruling. More thoughts here: http://ziffblog.wordpress.com/2012/05/29…
Having sat on the jury in several criminal trials, I can assure you: prosecution and defense lawyers are NOT under oath and are completely free to lie their fucking asses off in open court. McKenna is a lawyer, and he is prosecuting a case.
It doesn't take a Mensan to realize that he is lying his fucking ass off.
@8 Same policy holds for House & Senate hearings. Witnesses are (often) under oath, but the folks who took an Oath of Office can lie all day long. That's what makes Al Franken stand out.
It's great that Goldy is keeping McKenna's feet to fire on this, but should Jay Inslee be shouting about it too? WTF else does he have to do with his time these days?
"severability is key." Thank you, Perry Mason. However, your average voter doesn't know severability from a hole in the ground, and when McKenna tells them that he's not going after the popular provisions in the law such as assuring insurability for those with pre-existing conditions (have you ever been turned down for that? Get ready for your later life), they just might believe him instead of realizing that he's just a lying sack of shit. So when Goldy tries to explain to the median voter that he's a lying sack of shit, it's not an attempt to dishonestly discredit him; its voter education.
That is dishonest.
4 gives a great legal explanation why it's allowed. Sadly, the media has no legal reason to tell us all of the facts either.
Doesn't make it right, mind you.
If you're McKenna, it would certainly be a loss if the Judge had granted the injunction. But that was a long shot. It would also have been a loss if the Judge went through and parsed the public statements, evaluated them, and determined that while they were misleading in isolation, or maybe somewhat misleading, they did not rise to the level of a violation. That would have been bad too -- a technical "win" but with the Judge criticizing his statements.
However, what the Judge did here was GREAT for McKenna. The Court basically held that no matter what McKenna says in public, no matter how false, a court cannot evaluate it at all and he is free to say whatever he wants without judicial oversight. If I'm McKenna, I'm pretty happy with that ruling. More thoughts here: http://ziffblog.wordpress.com/2012/05/29…
It doesn't take a Mensan to realize that he is lying his fucking ass off.
It's great that Goldy is keeping McKenna's feet to fire on this, but should Jay Inslee be shouting about it too? WTF else does he have to do with his time these days?
It may not be illegal for him to lie. Still, it DOES make him a lying sack of shit.
"severability is key." Thank you, Perry Mason. However, your average voter doesn't know severability from a hole in the ground, and when McKenna tells them that he's not going after the popular provisions in the law such as assuring insurability for those with pre-existing conditions (have you ever been turned down for that? Get ready for your later life), they just might believe him instead of realizing that he's just a lying sack of shit. So when Goldy tries to explain to the median voter that he's a lying sack of shit, it's not an attempt to dishonestly discredit him; its voter education.