WHEN IS THE FAILURE TO SAY ANYTHING WORSE THAN TELLING A LIE?

I’ve got a friend (some of you who read this blog may even know who I’m talking about) who insists that when you don’t tell the whole story it’s not a lie. This person defines lying as knowingly providing information that is false. With a straight face this person can tell you part of the story leave part of it out and have a clear conscience that no lie was told. I’ve always found that trait more disturbing than the person who readily admits they lie. I trust the liar more because when they say something you know to look for the untruth. When my friend tells you something you have to look for what hasn’t been said.

You probably think I’m winding up to take another swing at how the commission handled the Patterson investigation. Nope Judge Kaye does a fine job of showing us that. The commission set a perjury trap by showing a blind man a check and asking did you write this? What more do we need to know The commission flak actually said today that they had shown the witness the evidence and he chose not to look at it Hey Walter if a tree falls in the forest and the only person in the forest is deaf does the falling tree make a sound?

No need to go over again the fact that the commission issued the report BEFORE the transcripts were available for review (we will ethically lynch him first then find him guilty then give him a trial)

Or mention again how the report came out BEFORE they took the testimony or lack thereof of the key witness to this whole sordid affair, David Johnson

Or say again that the lack of evidence at the show trial would have embarrassed a first year law student

Or question why an outside lawyer with ties to Mike the chair was allowed to investigate and prosecute the case (hey that’s another way to save the state about a million dollars a year fire all the commission lawyers and get Mike the chairs buddies to handle cases for free)

No my point is far simpler

ITS 15 DAYS AND MIKE THE CHAIR STILL HASN”T ANSWERED THE QUESTION OF DID THE COMMISSION CHANGE THE WAY IT CALCULATES DUE DATES?

Mike the chair is hoping no one will remember the question that way if he doesn’t answer it’s not a lie

Let me answer the question for you Mike YES THEY DID

On Tuesday July 27 Barry and Ralph outlined how program staff should calculate due dates

Now you don’t have to “lie” anymore by not answering the question. But you should go back and refund those late fees don’t you think

And before you start the internal witch hunt for who anonymously told, mailed telegraphed, signaled or telepathically provided me the answer(my guess would be it was a lawyer but keep in mind I could be lying about that) remember the last time Barry tried to find a leaker at the commission? It was trooper gate and he made every employee sign non disclosure agreements and had the commission attorneys question them. Every employee except one. That’s right the one employee who was leaking got a pass, Teitelbaum never had to answer any questions till the IG got to him even then he and Barry tried to avoid telling the truth by not telling the whole story. That’s right the same Barry Ginsberg who was rewarded with the executive directors job when Teitelbaum had to resign . Now don’t get mad Barry its right there on page 10 of the IG report “Both Teitelbaum and Ginsberg declined to answer basic questions asked by the Inspector General”

I guess refusing to answer basic or even simple questions is just the way this commission does business.

Oh how did Mike the chair respond to the leaking of confidential information and refusal to answer basic questions? he said to the New York Times that the commission “acted in an unbiased and objective manner”

The same answer I’m sure he’d give about refusing to tell the lobbying community about changing the way due dates are determined.

As an aside to the governor’s folks he also said that some of Teitelbaums actions may have been improper but the information that he was accused of providing was of little legal consequence. Using that logic if the governor misled the commission about a fact that was of little legal consequence shouldn’t he get a pass from the commission? Maybe in the next blog I’ll explore that theory in a little more detail.