I'm reading "Ivanka Trump Testifies to House Panel Investigating Jan. 6 Attack" in The New York Times. Key sentence:
It was not immediately clear how revelatory her testimony was for the committee, but those familiar with the interview said Ms. Trump did not seek to invoke any privilege — such as executive privilege or the Fifth Amendment, as other witnesses have done — and broadly, if not garrulously, answered the panel’s questions.
And what's with "not immediately clear how revelatory"? It sounds like she testified simply and straightforwardly, but there was nothing interesting. Why act like later something might be revealed? It's such lame titillation. What was unclear?
What is the function of "if not garrulously"? It strikes me as vaguely sexist, as though you would expect her to chatter inanely.
Posts
70 comments:
“The walls are closing in” on Ivanka Trump!
"And what's with "not immediately clear how revelatory"? It sounds like she testified simply and straightforwardly, but there was nothing interesting. Why act like later something might be revealed? It's such lame titillation. What was unclear?"
They haven't figured out how to twist it yet. But give them time. They will.
Is she part of the executive branch? If so, what was her job title. She's the presidents daughter. I have no idea why she or Trump son-in-law are testifying. Are they supposed to be stand-ins for Trump?
Its funny how Republicans always play this "WE have nothing to hide, we'll testify and tell the truth, ask us anything" game and expect to get credit for it. They're always so eagar to show the Democrats/liberals what noble open COOPERATIVE people they are. And it gets them nowhere, except a prison cell or unemployed.
The D's meanwhile, tell every Republican investigation to go fuck themselves and stonewall and counterattack. "So, sue me" is their motto.
Only the mentally ill are watching this sideshow
And what's with "not immediately clear how revelatory"? It sounds like she testified simply and straightforwardly, but there was nothing interesting. Why act like later something might be revealed? It's such lame titillation. What was unclear?
I figure they are relying on immediate sources right now, and maybe a fuller picture in coming days, with more sources.
You're right about "if not garrulously" being off base. They gratuitously brought up garrulously.
"not immediately clear how revelatory"
it means that BlackRock's New York Times is waiting for the blast fax to be sent once they get their stories straight.
Remember when the were investigating the IRS and a sudden and very precise rash of hard drive failures struck and th New York Times laughed it off?
NYT saying we don't know yet how to spin this : instructions please 'D' Masters
Not garrulous, but voluble perhaps?
Loquacious? Dare I say, prolix?
No, she was taciturn, even laconic.
I don't recall ever seeing "garrulous" with testimony before.
It must be SAT week, if there still are SATs.
The only thing they care about, they will not get. Pres. Trump obviously believed that the election was corrupt, and he was trying to get an investigation. Everyone who knew him will say so. In fact, they'll say he was being an idiot about it and wouldn't listen.
This has been obvious all along, except to people who have their own imaginary Donald Trump in their brains.
>>Ann Althouse said...
"if not garrulously"? It strikes me as vaguely sexist, as though you would expect her to chatter inanely.<
"Sexist" -- yeah, that's got to be it because, lord knows, no man has ever been considered to be chatty or garrulous.
And what's with "not immediately clear how revelatory"?
I think it's obvious. For the Times' readers and the Times' reporters, the purpose of the committee is to "get Trump", to find information that he did something illegal. She didn't say anything that leads to that conclusion but using what she said, they will interview more people and take testimony from more people and maybe they'll find some sort of smoking gun.
The Soviet cancel-cult left demand we all walk ourselves to the mind-crime gulag.
The left need time to unravel her words or perhaps manufacture fake quotes and put them on Twitter(D) - offical platform for The Party.
Tim 9:31 - exactly
The Corporate Party Collective must ponder how to collective narrative spin - then distribute on the pages of NYT and on the Stephen Colbert Show.
and on The View... and a nice skip for NBC's various propaganda comedy shows.
Alternative article,
"Ms. Trump appeared unconcerned as she testified freely and frankly, without resorting to her constitutional 5th amendment rights. At this time, nothing newsworthy was identified from her disclosures."
Gah how I miss straightforward reporting.
skit (not skip)
I diagnose Milbank as a stage 3 TRD sufferer.
She gave away the milk for free to the Inquisition because it was skim.
Not garrulously means Ivanka gave short answers, as her lawyers coached her to do.
At this point I do wonder if any NYT "reporter" is able to write a sentence without loaded language when the subject is one of the paper's political enemies (as so many of us are in their eyes). Okay, I'm done wondering. I'm pretty sure they cannot do so. Otherwise they would do so.
Maybe the NYT expected Ivanka in front of the Committee to be "...somewhat garrulous in the company of thieves"?
And what's with "not immediately clear how revelatory"? It sounds like she testified simply and straightforwardly, but there was nothing interesting. Why act like later something might be revealed? It's such lame titillation. What was unclear?
The Commission is not looking for truth or facts.
This is a Stalinist "investigation" looking for a crime.
From this perspective her testimony while true and open and honest did not reveal any crimes. Nothing is going to be clear until these people find a crime. Anything that can be used against their enemies and allow them to stay in power.
Justice is coming for these shitheads.
Its the New York Times the mouthpiece of the Democrat Party. It is going to be sexist, partisan, untrue and slanted.
That is a given.
@Althouse: "What is the function of "if not garrulously"? It strikes me as vaguely sexist, as though you would expect her to chatter inanely."
It's a show trial and has been a show trial from the start. Crude and transparent propaganda. It's not sexist, it's a random way to smear all things Trump as flawed or inferior.
If they critically examined law enforcement failings and why Parler rather than Facebook was abruptly shut down it would not be propaganda. It's curious how Mark Zuckerberg "donated" millions of dollars to ensure that Democrats would win just a couple months before the innocent Facebook competitor Parler was suddenly targeted as a threat. Hmmmm? Hmmmm?
It’s the word you would use when you can’t use the preferred word when the Trump name is on the byline - scandalous.
Close enough for government work.
"if not garrulously" is just weird. As you note, Prof A, the wording makes it sound as if garrulous testimony is the best kind. Really?
FWIW I associate "garrulous" with a cheerful drunk in a bar who simply won't shut up.
Of course you don't know what they mean when they use "not something" as their definitional statement. Which is, to this non-journalist, the exact opposite of an appropriate journalistic writing style.
[One suspects they didn't bother looking it up before using it.]
"What was unclear?"
Here's what's unclear. How Democrats keep getting educated to Congress. Are voters so blinded to Democrats' willfulness to be faithful to their Article VI office of office?
Life is easy when you don't have anything to hide.
That's why Joe will never be asked any meaningful questions about his corrupt dealings for personal gain.
What is clear? Democrats are trying to make being or associating with Republicans de facto unlawful and subject to endless investigation in search of a crime. Until you fail to show up for their inquisitions and indict for the crime of interfering with their investigation.
"Pres. Trump obviously believed that the election was corrupt...."
I don't think that is obvious at all. It's possible he could have thought the election was corrupt, but I think it's more likely Trump knew it was not, or didn't care if it was corrupt or valid. Trump was just using every trick he could to hold on to the office and to cast doubt on the validity of the election. His ego does not allow him to accept that he lost, that he is that worst thing he can think of calling someone, "a loser."
The media fawn and spin anything to do with any democrat in the most glowing terms.
The same Soviet hacks shit over anyone who isn't loyal to The Party Oligarchs.
Either you are a very slow learner, or you are trolling us with rhetorical questions.
I think the latter.
This was the most public, least planned "coup" in the history of politics.
But Inspector Javert is on it!
"Pres. Trump obviously believed that the election was corrupt...."
I don't think that is obvious at all. It's possible he could have thought the election was corrupt, but I think it's more likely Trump knew it was not, or didn't care if it was corrupt or valid. Trump was just using every trick he could to hold on to the office and to cast doubt on the validity of the election. His ego does not allow him to accept that he lost, that he is that worst thing he can think of calling someone, "a loser."
"The Corporate Party Collective must...."
Which part of it, the Republican wing or the Democrat wing?
FWIW I associate "garrulous" with a cheerful drunk in a bar who simply won't shut up.
========
spilling guts one way before doing the other
I think you nailed it with your phrase "lame titillation".
I do believe it is the standard for what passes as 'Journalism!' today.
and broadly, if not garrulously, answered the panel’s questions.
So, her answers were yes, no or I don't know. Exactly how your attorney instructs you to respond when you are deposed.
Rollo @ 9:36: "...it must be SAT week, if there are still SATs."
Nice!
Imagine you are a journalist and you write a story that says: "Ivanka Trump testified before the Grand Jury. She did not invoke any privilege and she answered all of the panel's questions." When you show that story to your editor, what do you expect the editor will say? I expect a NYT editor to say, "This story fails to pass the first basic test, which is "does the story contribute toward the objective of achieving social justice (where "social justice" is defined as "discrediting Donald Trump")?"
"What is the function of 'if not garrulously'? It strikes me as vaguely sexist, as though you would expect her to chatter inanely."
Althouse is soooo out of touch, it must be embarrassing for Meade. How could she not know the Vice-President is the epitome of womanliness? (Whatever that fluid social construct could mean to her, not holding the doctorate in biology required to use the term objectively.)
I read "broadly, if not garrulously" to mean that she was perhaps bordering on garrulousness.
If someone said, "the dog was barking, if not howling" it can mean, the dog was doing more than barking, it could perhaps be described as howling.
That's one common use of that phrasing.
So far the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 failure to forcefully overthrow the American government, reinstall President Trump and power wash Nancy Pelosi's desk has spent more than $2 million on its investigation. So little for so much press coverage.
I think a lot of people think the election was stolen in targeted precincts - and the ability to look into the fraud (potential or not) was thwarted by the collective left's threats / and the media's lock-step attempts to smear and gulag anyone who dared question the election results.
Therefore - it's an unknown. But damn it- you will not ALLOWED TO EVEN THINK SUCH A THING!
Thoughts are now crimes.
After 4 years of Hillary and her willing mouth pieces in the MSNBC Maddow-Mueller-Steele press pushing a total lie about Putin stealing the 2016 election for Trump.
I don't know if the election was stolen. But I do think the left are cheats and lairs.
Left Bank of the Charles said...
Not garrulously means Ivanka gave short answers, as her lawyers coached her to do.
Lawyers are still telling clients to tell the truth, stick only to the question, don't give an opinion or use numbers?
Very shocking for law grads from woke universities.
If the Democrats didn't at least suspect that the election was corrupt, they wouldn't be so opposed to in-depth investigations and reforms to eliminate potential future corruption.
Robert Cook said...
"Pres. Trump obviously believed that the election was corrupt...."
I don't think that is obvious at all. It's possible he could have thought the election was corrupt, but I think it's more likely Trump knew it was not, or didn't care if it was corrupt or valid. Trump was just using every trick he could to hold on to the office and to cast doubt on the validity of the election. His ego does not allow him to accept that he lost, that he is that worst thing he can think of calling someone, "a loser."
**************
From 2016 to 2020, Cookie, Democrats refused to accept the validity of Trump's election. They claimed "Russian Collusion" got Trump over the top, and twice impeached him in attempts to remove him from office---remember?
But maybe you have an excuse for not remembering, such as being in a medically-induced coma the whole time. Is that it?
The "garrulousness" comment is almost certainly because Ivanka did not say anything useful, useful being defined as anything to bash her father. It is purely a partisan concern, as is typical of this source.
That or Biden hadn't provided any new Corn Pop stories, or challenged Macron to a wrestling match at Wrestlemania Backlash, so they were looking for entertainment. Journalists are such simple creatures.
Sounds like someone wanted to add a big word to their lame story. Gotta use that thesaurus Mom sent you for Christmas.
Or Maybe Ivanka went on and on about the weather? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Absent evidence that Mr. Trump agreed with anyone else to use force and violence to prevent Congress from certifying Mr. Biden's electoral college victory, there is no possibility of him being indicted by DOJ. It doesn't matter what the House committee thinks or how many ridiculous arguments they or their allies put forward about "defrauding the Government." What would matter would be proof that Mr. Trump or someone in his camp was in communication prior to January 6 with the yahoos who were planning the Capitol invasion. No such evidence has surfaced to date, despite DOJ's efforts to squeeze the yahoos into giving up Mr. Trump, and so I think it is unlikely that any such evidence exists. All the rest is just politics. Mind you, I personally think that the political attacks on Mr. Trump for his campaign of lies about election fraud and his attempts to get Congress to undo the election that he lost are well justified. But as far as I can see, he didn't commit a crime.
Robert Cook said...
"The Corporate Party Collective must...."
Which part of it, the Republican wing or the Democrat wing?
Both parties are in on it.
You are pretty stupid if you think that election was legitimate.
I think the reporter was clumsily trying to capture what she was told in the context of the different levels of non-client witness testimony. There's evasive and non-reslonsive, there's non-evasive and responsive, and there's volunteering info not covered by the question. She was in the middle. There had been better versions of reporting right after she finished toothed same effect.
Ivanka refusing to answer any questions would have been an easy gotcha. I suspect the crafty lady talked freely ( for 8 hours)and also told them her opinion of them. Now the Grand Inquisitor’s staff has to spin her talking freely as the trick of an arrogant snob. That’s all they got.
Remember when lefties speculated Trump slept with Ivanka? It was sick. All because the old man admired how she had turned out.
Talk about yer textbook projection...
I would like to see video- or borderline garrulousness is fictitious on its nose.
"From 2016 to 2020, Cookie, Democrats refused to accept the validity of Trump's election. They claimed 'Russian Collusion"' got Trump over the top, and twice impeached him in attempts to remove him from office---remember?"
Dems who held on to and promulgated that allegation were simply sore losers like the Trumpers who insist (without evidence) that the 2020 election was rigged. (Given that Clinton did win a greater popular vote than Trump, they had least had a sliver of a reason to be shocked and resentful. However, that's the truth of our system: it is not the popular vote that elects the president, but the electoral vote.)
How does their foolishness justify or mitigate the foolishness of Trumpers who claim Trump won 2020?
The Democrats illegal committee harassed the elected President's daughter for eight hours. Just another day under the Biden regime.
Blogger Howard said...
"Only the mentally ill are watching this sideshow."
The mentally ill are running this shitshow, Howard.
"broadly, if not garrulously"
"What is the function of "if not garrulously"? It strikes me as vaguely sexist, as though you would expect her to chatter inanely."
You missed "broadly" in your search for sexism.
The NYT is defined by how its "journalists" write stories. It is a dishonest, bad faith, propagandistic, would-be influencer that cares not about relating facts but rather effecting its bizarre, naive fantasy of what reality could be.
"I don't think that is obvious at all."
I think you are seriously underestimating Trump's (or, to be fair, any national politician's) affinity for self-delusion. To this day Trump believes (just ask him) that the election was rigged. It's not hard to believe he did back in January of 2021.
Even your own assertion that he was trying to hold on to power any way he could assumes he wasn't looking at things realistically. There was no way that protesters were going to prevent the vote, and Pence wasn't going to do what he knew he didn't have the authority to do. Only someone who truly believed he was wronged would have continued down that dead end.
So she was almost a chatty Cathy, says the Times, as they await a revelatory experience. I wonder where she got her near garrulousness from? There must be another Trump who talks a lot.
speaking of the Trump family...
Breaking News!
Don Jr. caught in a hotel room with a hooker and a hard-on.
It's all over the news.
So the use of "garrulously" is simply a criticism of the writer - end of story.
I think Ivanka is physically beautiful but mentally not so much. She never yammers on and on in public like Dad does but in private she uses all the curse words that Dad taught her.
I don't understand what information the Committee sought except to have her confirm that she asked The Donald to call off the riot but he didn't react.
did not know Jan 6 committee hearing was closed to outsiders, Trump supporters audience!
I don't know if the election was stolen. But I do think the left are cheats and lairs.
===========
if we are using big words : purloined election is pointedly flagrantly obvious
Imagine you are a journalist and you write a story that says: "Ivanka Trump testified before the Grand Jury. She did not invoke any privilege and she answered all of the panel's questions." When you show that story to your editor, what do you expect the editor will say? I expect a NYT editor to say, "This story fails to pass the first basic test, which is "does the story contribute toward the objective of achieving social justice (where "social justice" is defined as "discrediting Donald Trump")?"
All true. The deeper truth may be that the media needs a "narrative," needs a hero and a villain. Just telling what happened isn't enough. You have to point to an enemy. For the mainstream media it's always going to be a narrative that favors the Democrats, but the media needs a narrative and needs its heroes and villains. Maybe that isn't really a deeper truth, but it nevertheless seems to be true.
"Garrulous" is not a gendered term, though generally I recall it being used more with reference to men and alcohol.
Prattle is a more gendered selection, but when one is a hammer, one sees only nails.
rcocean said...
Is she part of the executive branch? If so, what was her job title. She's the presidents daughter. I have no idea why she or Trump son-in-law are testifying. Are they supposed to be stand-ins for Trump?
Ivanka Trump was appointed "First Daughter and Advisor to the President," a government employee, on March 29, 2017; according to the administration, she takes no salary. However, Ivanka pulled in almost $4 million in revenue per year from her stake in the family hotel near the White House; and you know and I know that the politics conducted at the Trump International Hotel in D.C. stoked illegal Emoluments Clause enrichments for The Donald and his family.
On January 9, 2017, Jared Kushner was named Senior Advisor to the President (formally, "Assistant to the President and Senior Advisor"). And Jared scored large when in 2018, the Qatari government bailed Kushner Properties out of it's monstrous investment at 666 5th Avenue - it seems that Kushner had refinanced the property, leaving the company with a $1.2 billion loan coming due in early 2019. The real estate market had crashed and the money-sucking building was heading the Kushner family toward bankruptcy. Qatar it seems had large ownership rights in Brookfield Properties which allowed the Arabs to magically take all of Kushner's debt overload away, but in no way did the Trump Regime get involved - nosiree, that didn't happen.
Hmm - $1.2 billion versus Hunter's supposed $10 million from China. BTW, the Kushner folks first talked to the Chinese Communists seeking a bailout in 2016 but the Democrats found out about the deal.
Post a Comment