FAQ: Why does just about EVERYTHING the government does involve EQUIVOCATION?

QUESTION:

Why does just about EVERYTHING the government does involve EQUIVOCATION? Just about EVERY important term they define is susceptible to equivocation.

ANSWER:

This is because although they are elected to protect PRIVATE property, the only thing they REALLY want to protect is themselves. Deep down, they know they are a mafia and that is what mafias ONLY do: Look out for #1 is always JOB 1! Most attorneys are hired mainly for “risk management”. They can’t be good at that job until they at least know how to minimize THEIR OWN risk.

Have you noticed that during Supreme Court nominee confirmation hearings in the Senate, prospective judges precede most statements with “unequivocally”, as if to indicate that this is their DEFAULT mode of approaching EVERYTHING?

When Presidents like Bill Clinton during his deposition about whether he had “sex” with Monica Lewinsky in the “oral office” says:

“I did not have sex with that woman”

He is simply assuming a different definition of “sex” than most people have and hoping no one will ask the following question afterward:

“What precisely is your definition of ‘sex’ in the context of that statement?”

We thank Slick Willy for his revelation….but it took us years later to understand it IN COMPLETION. Here’s what in essence Slick said with that statement of “it depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is.” Slick Willy, the sharp lawyer, sent a SALVO to Congress and the executive branch. Here is what his salvo said,

“Wanna go there? Do you DARE? When I get done with definitions, a whole lot of people who pay you taxes will no longer see themselves in your laws based purely on definitions.”

And they stopped didn’t they? It would have been paraded across every network, examined in detail. And a WHOLE lot of people would have woken up. Congress knew of all the people who inhabited the Whitehouse, Slick Willy was alleged to be the smartest and the sharpest lawyer. From Salon magazine 1998: Years from now, when we look back on Bill Clinton’s presidency, its defining moment may well be Clinton’s rationalization to the grand jury about why he wasn’t lying when he said to his top aides that with respect to Monica Lewinsky, “There’s nothing going on between us.” How can this be? Here’s what Clinton told the grand jury (according to footnote 1,128 in Starr’s report):

“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. If the—if he—if ‘is’ means is and never has been, that is not—that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement. … Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true.”

The distinction between “is” and “was” was seized on by the commentariat when Clinton told Jim Lehrer of PBS right after the Lewinsky story broke, “There is no improper relationship.” Chatterbox confesses that at the time he thought all these Beltway domes were hyper-analyzing, and in need of a little fresh air. But it turns out they were right: Bill Clinton really is a guy who’s willing to think carefully about “what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” This is way beyond slick. Perhaps we should start calling him, “Existential Willie.”

Later on, when Bill Clinton’s wife Hillary got into trouble about compromising national security on her private email server, she was famous for a slight variation of the above:

“I did NOT have ’email’ with that man.”

But of course no one ever asked her definition of “email” in the context of THAT statement either.

And when politicians are discredited by something they say, how do they respond? By saying:

“They quoted me out of context”

They do this to emphasize that confusing contexts is their NORMAL mode of operation, which is what equivocation always involves.

EVERY time you are dealing with politicians or lawyers, you should ALWAYS follow up every question about a fact with another question about the DEFINITION of the key words used by the deponent. All such words are usually a product of UNDISCLOSED presumptions about their meaning to avoid ACTUALLY lying about something. George Carlin explained why you must do this in the following entertaining video:

George Carlin Political Speak The National Press Club
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxD-fJr_ZL0

Another VARIATION of this approach to legal discovery is our favorite legal proverb:

The BIG print GIVETH, and the LITTLE print taketh away. The LITTLE print is the DEFINITIONS. The BIG print is in the FRONT and the LITTLE print is at the end of the contract or statute. ALWAYS READ THE LITTLE PRINT FIRST.

For detailed explanations of all the various modes of legal deception, including equivocation, see:

Legal Deception, Propaganda, and Fraud, Form #05.014
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/LegalDecPropFraud.pdf