Several readers told me they were unable to access my conversation with Todd Scholl of the South Carolina Center for Educatot Wellness and Learning.
We talked about attacks on public schools, standardized testing, and privatization.
Todd sent these links:
The video can be found on the CEWL website at www.cewl.us. A direct link to the video can be found at https://youtu.be/Zm0Vi3S3RLM.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
This is Diane: “Brings insightful critiques to the forefront of conversation…” This is how I see you as well. Blessed to know you.
Why, thank you!
I just finished listening and viewing to your interview. THANK YOU, Diane. I sure hope MANY view your intelligent and most thoughtful interview.
Thank you, Yvonne.
Off topic, but I had the Fulton County D.A. disqualification motion hearing in the background all day and it was pretty wild (as was yesterday as well). I recommend watching it — it’s a pretty good intro to basic rules of evidence and privilege law, while also having some unexpected fireworks. The judge deserves a lot of credit for keeping it under control and maintaining an admirable level of chill.
Should add that there was so much going on today that I can’t begin to guess the outcome. Plus there will be in camera proceedings to resolve privilege claims over texts sent by the “star witness,” Wade’s former law partner. The only thing that seems clear to me at the moment is that Nathan Wade perjured himself in his divorce proceedings.
The only thing that seems clear to me is that Josh Marshall’s TalkingPointsMemo is correct:
“There’s a big racial component to all this, to put it mildly. As one TPM editor put it: when was the last time you saw a white male prosecutor questioned in court over a romantic relationship?”
(No doubt you can cite many instances, flerp!, as you have posted multiple times here that you feel strongly any sexual relationship raised very serious concerns about a conflict of interest to the degree that an investigation and hearing like this was the right thing to do. You must be very pleased, flerp!)
More from TalkingPointsMemo:
“Most of the news coverage elided the racial and gender power dynamics at play. But Black people recognize this modern day spectacle of demeaning and dehumanizing treatment: Willis’ personal life scrutinized, her sex life exposed to public ridicule, her ways of handling money and relationships treated not as a difference of culture or social class but as unethical and disqualifying. And racists recognize it, too! Fox News was beside itself with the spectacle. ”
(flerp!, you seemed quite positive about the “unexpected fireworks”, too!)
More TPM:
“If Black people know what’s going on here and racists know what’s going on here, then why is everyone else content to leave their heads in the sand?”
Flerp!, it is so interesting that what you got out of the hearing was “a pretty good intro to basic rules of evidence and privilege law”. The kind of hearing that I’m guessing you never saw white male prosecutors have to submit to. But perhaps you are certain that white prosecutors aren’t subject to this because their personal sex lives are always conducted according to such high standards that there’s never been a hook up between 2 prosecutors until Fani did it.
Love that the only thing that was clear to you is the shocking thing that a man lied in one of his divorce proceeding filings, something that seems to stun you. I understand men who lie on divorce filing paperwork are regularly prosecuted for “perjury”, or did you just throw that out to
demonize Wade?
I wonder about your double standard – when does it “seem clear” to you that a lawyer “perjured himself”?
“You need a date / and it’s getting late / so don’t hesitate / to call Renate.”
“Renate Alumnius”
Does it “seem clear” to you that Brett Kavanaugh perjured himself when he said the multiple references to Renate by he and his friends throughout their senior yearbook were because they wanted to “show affection” to their “good female friend” whom they “admired” and was “absolutely not related to sex”?
If indeed you believe it is appropriate for you to reserve judgement about Kavanaugh, why do you feel confident condemning Wade? You seemed confident condemning Claudine Gay, too, but not Neri Oxman.
I don’t expect a reply, or perhaps I expect a snarky one.
But I ask you to examine your own biases and why you are only confident about strongly condemning certain folks and not others, when all of them have done the same thing.
You posted here to inform us that the hearing was educational and proved that Wade was a perjurer.
The entire partisan politicization of a criminal trial seemed to be invisible. Not important at all.
People’s response to this hearing seems very revealing of their own implicit biases. NYT “Readers Picks” comment with the most recommends:
GerryMeandering
Ohio
Feb. 16
I watched the entire hearing and was skeptical and disappointed in Ms. Willis before the proceedings. Now, I will say, I’ve never seen anything like Fani Willis. I believe her 100% and I think she deserves to prosecute her case to the end and I also think after enduring this crucible, she’ll double her effort. Go Fani!
Continuing my last thought, there’s actually a fair inference that both Wade and Willis perjured themselves yesterday. I don’t think the judge will make that inference (partly because of the privilege issues, and partly because there’s no strong corroboration of the allegation at issue), but it’s there to be made.
It appears that the source, or one of the sources, of the allegations in the disqualification motion was Bradley, Wade’s former law partner who represented him for sometime in Wade’s divorce trial. Ashley Merchant, who filed the motion on defendant Roman’s behalf, sent the final draft of the motion to Bradley and asked him if the allegations were accurate. Bradley responded that they were–i.e., that Wade and Willis were “dating” when Wade was hired as special prosecutor, and that Wade paid Willis’s freight on vacations using his law firm credit card.
By doing this, Bradley arguably violated the attorney-client privilege that attached due to his representation of Wade in the divorce proceeding. Whether that’s the case depends on whether what Bradley knew about Wade and Willis’s relationship was (1) told to him by Wade and (2) told to him in order to obtain legal advice in the divorce proceeding.
Bradley, who apparently was perfectly happy to corroborate the allegations to Merchant a couple months ago, clammed up at the hearing, citing privilege–the same privilege he would have violated when he told Merchant the allegations were accurate. The State argued all day that the communications that gave Bradley knowledge about whether and when Wade and Willis were dating were privileged. Meaning that Wade told him. So the hearing devolved largely into an argument about whether privilege applies and whether there’s some exception to the doctrine of privilege. That’s what’s going to continue in camera (i.e. in the judge’s chambers, out of open court).
Crazy stuff. This trial is going to be fascinating.
What is with your obsession with insinuating that Wade and Willis perjured themselves based on YOUR definition of “relationship”, and why do you keep giving credibility to folks who have no credibility?
You won’t say Brett Kavanaugh perjured himself, but you insinuate that Willis did? You STILL haven’t explained what exactly she said that was a lie. I quoted Brett Kavanaugh so that people could decide if Kavanaugh’s definition of “admired” and “show affection” and “absolutely not related to sex” passes the smell test for readers. Your entire case for Willis committing perjury seems to rest on your belief that there is a single definition of “being in a relationship”, and outsiders like you know what it is.
FYI, two people hooking up is NOT a “relationship” until they say it is. It’s not a relationship because a woman in her office who is angry at being fired says it is.
And a relationship does not begin the first time two people hook up. They can hook up once or twice in a couple years, and then not hook up for a couple years, and THEN, finding themselves working together closely a long while later, spend a lot of time together and decide to be in a committed relationship. We all know this.
It isn’t perjury when a white man testifies he is not in a “relationship” with an acquaintance he slept with once or twice 6 months ago. You know this. So why do you need to smear Willis as a perjurer because she did not consider herself being in a relationship with Willis when you say she was?
There is NO evidence whatsoever that Fani Willis did anything improper. Every legal expert (except flerp!) says that there is no conflict of interest that harms the defense. None. That gets buried in the rush to condemn her for “appearances”. And “perjury”.
If she resigns because of “optics” – something that no one, including you, says Brett Kavanaugh should do, then it’s implicit racism.
You reserve judgement on Brett Kavanaugh’s perjury but have invoked Willis’ perjury multiple times here. Why the double standard? It’s not a good look.
“dating”??? lol
You based your entire smear of Willis on an unethical lawyer’s definition of “dating” and when this lawyer decided the relationship officially changed from “hooking up” or “friends with occasional benefits” to “dating”?
Her own father did not know they were “dating”.
The low bar required as “proof” to smear a Black woman – to post here multiple times that this Black woman broke the law, speaks for itself.
And yet you don’t have enough information to offer such an opinion about Brett Kavanaugh?
Why not give Willis the benefit of the doubt you give Brett Kavanaugh, instead of accusing her multiple times of committing “perjury”.
People said that they were hanging with each other a lot and hugging and kissing a lot and being all lovey dovey. So, it’s pretty clear that they were involved.
But this shouldn’t make any difference whatsoever. Their love life is their love life. It’s no one else’s business. So, I agree with you to that extent, NYC.
I don’t see the conflict of interest when two people on the same team are in a relationship. The Trump team says that Fani gave Wade a cushy job, that he used the money from the job to pay for trips and dinners with her. She says they split the check. Really, this is bad judgment but not criminal. Not as bad as stealing an election, or trying to.
What percentage of people meet their partner at work? I don’t know, but it’s a high percentage. And there is not conflict of interest here. And I would bet my booty that she DID pay her share, that they are a modern couple in that way. I worked for a publishing house where the CE) and the Marketing Manager were both secretly married. And they were both kick-ass good at their jobs.
Bob,
You bought into the false narrative and you completely mischaracterized the testimony.
ONE person who had essentially been fired by Fani Willis made a vague illusion to them hugging and kissing. Very vague.
If they were a romantically involved couple exhibiting PDA in front of other people, there would be more evidence.
Fani Willis herself readily admitted that she and Wade eventually had a relationship they both recognized as a relationship. That is perfectly fine. The far right knows it is perfectly fine for two prosecutors to be in a romantic relationship.
The accusation is being made that it is NOT perfectly fine because….
“there is a conflict of interest with 2 prosecutors hooking up.”
oops, that didn’t work so next false narrative:
“Fani Willis hired Wade so she could financially benefit from the free vacations he would give her from the compensation he earned”
oops, that didn’t work so next false narrative:
“Fani Willis committed perjury, because her truthful story of the relationship with Wade did not acknowledge the lie that people are always deemed “in a relationship” from their very first hook up, even if 6 months or a year goes by before their next hook-up.”
Every young person in America understands that it is “perjury” to testify that you are “in a relationship” with an acquaintance you hooked up with once a year ago, and it is “perjury” to testify under oath that you are in a relationship with your one night stand if neither of you believes the one night stand constitutes a relationship!
flerp! is now focused on calling Fani Willis a perjurer but he never quotes her exact words of perjury. She had an affair with Wade and admitted it. She did NOT hire Wade to get free vacations.
So where is the perjury?
allusion
Bob,
When I said Brett Kavanaugh committed perjury, I pointed out what exactly was written in the yearbook, and what Brett Kavanaugh testified under oath those nasty smears of a young woman meant:
“You need a date / and it’s getting late / so don’t hesitate / to call Renate.”
“Renate Alumnius”
Brett Kavanaugh perjured himself when he said the multiple references to Renate by he and his friends throughout their senior yearbook were because they wanted to (QUOTE) “show affection” to their “good female friend” whom they “admired” and was “absolutely not related to sex”?
Those are Kavanaugh’s exact words of perjury. Not “allusions”. (FYI, that was an autocorrect I did not notice)
Since flerp! keeps saying that Fani Willis committed perjury, I hope flerp! can quote the exact words that Fani said that made flerp! certain that a woman who testified that she DID have a relationship with Wade committed perjury.
If I kept alluding to Kavanaugh committing perjury without quoting his words that were perjury, why would anyone believe me? Because they already have a bias against Kavanaugh? I am sure flerp!’s attacks on Fani Willis work well with people who already have a bias against her.
I thought FLERP said that Wade committed perjury.
Diane,
Flerp!’s quote from above:
“…both Wade and Willis perjured themselves yesterday….”
I have been looking for Willis saying something in the transcript that flerp! could possibly deem more perjurious than what Kavanaugh said when he was under oath. Maybe it’s there, so I will keep looking. flerp! obviously has the specific quotes where – when read in context – Fani Willis supposedly commited perjury, but for some reason doesn’t want to share them.
To me, it is clear that Fani and Ward had a personal relationship just like Fani truthfully testified, but no evidence that the two of them considered themselves to be in a “romantic” relationship. That’s in the eye of the beholder, but even “friends with benefits” (and not sure there was any sex) is not “romantic”. That’s the whole point! If “friends with benefits” meant the same as “romantic relationship”, the term would not exist. It is the definition of a personal relationship that is not romantic, even if it can occasionally be sexual. And if both Fani Willis and Wade say they had a personal relationship that didn’t become a “romantic” relationship, how can anyone but them decide whether that is true? Let alone smear them as perjurers. Fani ADMITS to the relationship! She just refuses to define the relationship falsely, and because the right wing wants her to define it falsely so it fits their narrative, their minions call it “perjury”.
Do go on
Sworn testimony from Willis. Notice the attempted trap. The defense has stretched the definition of a “romantic” relationship as one that doesn’t include sex.
Fani has forced them again and again to define “romantic” versus “personal”. She is testifying truthfully about her friendship with Ward. Calling this “perjury” as if you are inside both their minds and bedrooms, is simply an attempt to smear someone when your earlier claims about “conflict of interest” are disproved.
SADOW: So the best of your recollection, you didn’t inform anyone on the prosecution team that the individual that you had chosen to lead the prosecution team had a personal relationship with you, but that correct?
WILLIS: That’s inaccurate. Your question is inaccurate.
SADOW: What —
WILLIS: You stated that the person I chose, we had a personal relationship, so we had a friendship. We have — we have all these distinguishing factors.
Remember, when I chose him in November of ’21. First of all, lets get district Mr. Wade was not actually my first choice. That’s no insult to him.
SADOW: Your Honor, I don’t —
WILLIS: No, because of the way you phrased the question you said, when I chose him, I didn’t inform people of a personal relationship. We have defined personal as romantic. It is an inaccurate way to state the question and —
SADOW: Then I will certainly restate so it is very accurate.
WILLIS: Okay. And please do not yell at me.
SADOW: You hired Mr. Wade for the first time on November 1st of 2021, correct?
WILLIS: November of 2021? Yes, sir.
SADOW: Your testimony is, whether one accepts it or not, your testimony is, but at the time you hired Mr. Wade, there had never been a romantic relationship with Mr. Wade before you hire him, correct?
WILLIS: Yes. My testimony is that we were very good friends, but not we’re talking about sex. So let’s just don’t —
SADOW: Well, I’m not talking about — I’m saying romantic relationship doesn’t necessarily have to be just sex. It can be updating. It can be holding hands. It can be any of those things that one might call romantic. I’m asking you whether or not prior to November 1st of 2021, there was a romantic relationship with Mr. Wade? That’s very simple. It’s either a yes or no?
WILLIS: I don’t consider my relationship with him to be romantic before that. I’m not a hold — hand-holder. So, no.
Here is MORE sworn testimony from Fani Willis that shows exactly what we all know is true. A relationship depends on people thinking it is a relationship. Look at this questioning about the END of the relationship. Is one of two people previously in a relationship “committing perjury” if they testify that the end of a relationship occurred at different times? Of course not.
“SADOW: Okay. You indicated your best recollection was that you relationship with Mr. Wade, a romantic relationship, ended — you will have to get — August of 2023. That sound right?
WILLIS: That’s the hard conversation. That’s not the —
JUDGE: We’ve covered this. Next question.
SADOW: And you characterize it as a tough conversation? Correct?
WILLIS: Yes.
SADOW: Okay. I’m not going to get into the conversation per se.
WILLIS: You should.
JUDGE: Well, if he doesn’t want to, we won’t go there.
So, Mr. Sadow, next question.
SADOW: It’s kind of hard to say no when you’ve got that opportunity. But I’m going to say is, was it pre-indictment in this case?
WILLIS: So —
JUDGE: We know the timeline that the indictment was delivered.
WILLIS: And so that we’re clear, the physical relationship ended pre- indictment.
SADOW: And is that when you were talking about the tough conversation?
WILLIS: But the phy — I’m not sure that the tough conversation didn’t happen until after, but the physical relationships, so I’m sure if you ask Mr. Wade because he’s a male, he would say we ended June or July because physical contact ended then.
Just in my mind, being a woman, it’s over when you have that like hard conversation. That’s — I just think women and men think differently.”
Was the END of the relationship when they stopped having physical contact or when they had the “tough conversation” weeks or months later?
Was the BEGINNING of the relationship the first time they hooked up as friends, or when the two of them agreed they wanted to make an emotional commitment to one another?
Only flerp! seems to know for sure.
Is it “perjury” to say that a man might consider the end of a relationship to be a different time than a woman? Or is that just something we all accept, unless we are trying to “get” a prosecutor, but not because of her race, just for no reason at all.
If one person testifies the relationship ended one day and the other person testifies the relationship ended another day, who decides which ones goes to jail for perjury? A third person who is expert at identifying perjury when two people have different perceptions of their relationship?
If BOTH people testify they had a personal friendship but their ROMANTIC relationship started at a certain time, but a 3rd person says their romantic relationship started earlier because they once saw them hug, are their experts who identify the official start and end dates of romantic relationships for couples so they don’t accidentally perjure themselves by testifying truthfully about when they perceived their romantic relationship began?
SADOW: I want to say one more. The romantic relationship ended before the indictment was returned? Yes or no?
WILLIS: TO A MAN, yes.
SADOW: To a man, yes. To you, no?
JUDGE: She’s explained this, Mr. Sadow. She’s explained.
SADOW: And the — did the forthcoming indictment have anything to do with that? Or was it just a coincidence.
WILLIS: Mister — let’s go on and have the conversation.
SADOW: I’ve just asked you whether or not it was a coincidence. WILLIS: Had absolutely nothing to do with this. It’s interesting that we’re here about this money Mr. Wade is used to women that — as he told me one time, the only thing a woman can do for him is make him a sandwich.
We would have brutal arguments about the fact that I am your equal. I don’t need anything from a man. A man is not a plan. A man is a companion.
And so there was tension always in our relationship, which is why I was give him his money back. I don’t need anybody to foot my bills. The only man who’s ever put my bills completely is my daddy.”
I believe Fani.
FLERP!
February 17, 2024 at 10:07 am
Continuing my last thought, there’s actually a fair inference that both Wade and Willis perjured themselves yesterday.
flerp! writes “…BOTH WADE AND WILLIS PERJURED THEMSELVES YESTERDAY….” without giving a single example. I challenged him to do so, and instead he says I am lying about him.
This is nasty stuff, Diane. You have a commenter on your blog who holds himself as having legal expertise who posted that Willis committed perjury
When this story first broke, flerp! posted that any relationship between Wade and Willis could be a serious conflict of interest.
When I asked flerp! to provide specific instances of Willis committed perjury, flerp! instead lied about me and attacked me.
Diane, you talked about civility on your blog. Why not hold flerp! to that standard.
A civil discussion means that if you believe you have mischaracterized on this blog, you don’t throw insults at the person.
You simply CLARIFY and show them where they misinterpreted you.
I very politely quoted flerp!’s post SMEARING Fani Willis as a perjurer. And I asked flerp! to provide quotes to support his posting here and calling her perjurer.
flerp! should clarify. But if someone intends to smear Fani Willis as a perjurer without having any evidence that she committed perjury in her testimony, they would do what flerp! did.
When I feel I have been mischaracterized, I post comments like this. I responded to flerp! saying Willis committed perjury without offering one single example for why he is so certain. The start and end time of a ROMANTIC relationship is in the eye of the people in the romantic relationship. Period. Not perjury.
Diane, I don’t understand why you condone that.
“FLERP!
February 17, 2024 at 10:07 am
Continuing my last thought, there’s actually a fair inference that both Wade and Willis perjured themselves yesterday.”
flerp! writes “…BOTH WADE AND WILLIS PERJURED THEMSELVES YESTERDAY….” without giving a single example. I challenged him to do so, and instead he says I am lying about him.
This is nasty stuff, Diane. You have a commenter on your blog who holds himself as having legal expertise who posted that Willis committed perjury
When this story first broke, flerp! posted that any relationship between Wade and Willis could be a serious conflict of interest.
When I asked flerp! to provide specific instances of Willis committed perjury, flerp! instead lied about me and attacked me.
Diane, you talked about civility on your blog. Why not hold flerp! to that standard.
A civil discussion means that if you believe you have mischaracterized on this blog, you don’t throw insults at the person.
You simply CLARIFY and show them where they misinterpreted you.
I very politely quoted flerp!’s post SMEARING Fani Willis as a perjurer. And I asked flerp! to provide quotes to support his posting here and calling her perjurer.
flerp! should clarify. But if someone intends to smear Fani Willis as a perjurer without having any evidence that she committed perjury in her testimony, they would do what flerp! did.
When I feel I have been mischaracterized, I post comments like this. I responded to flerp! saying Willis committed perjury without offering one single example for why he is so certain. The start and end time of a ROMANTIC relationship is in the eye of the people in the romantic relationship. Period. Not perjury.
Diane, I don’t understand why you condone that.
Something very important that our favorite legal expert “forgot” to mention that came out in the Fani Willis hearing yesterday:
There was unimpeachable, absolutely truthful testimony that Fani Willis tried to get other lawyers to take this job BEFORE she eventually turned to Wade. Our favorite expert forgot to mention that the Trumpie defense attorneys couldn’t come up with a single attorney who said they had tried to get the job, but Willis turned them down to give it to Wade. On the contrary, the testimony showed the other attorneys she approached to take the job turned her down because the pay was NOT particularly lucrative and because of THREATS.
What our favorite legal expert “forgot” to mention was how the testimony proved that the defense attorneys and everyone else lied when they said that there was evidence Fani hired Wade so she could benefit from what he would buy her with the salary. She hired Wade because other attorneys kept turning her down AND he was a perfectly qualified attorney.
It is a racist insult that folks here imply that a professional Black woman with an admirable career was so desperate for money to be able to go on a nice vacation that she would (after first trying to hire other attorneys who turned her down) hire Wade so he’d pay for her vacations. Absurd. If a person is invoking such motives to justify why they are positive a Black woman committed perjury and did something improper, but this same person doesn’t find anything improper when a white male attorney like Kavanaugh has hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt funding a lifestyle that far exceeded that of a federal judge commits perjury, then there is quite a bit of implicit racism driving those beliefs. When the same folks have no problem when white lawyers have spouses hired for extremely lucrative and overly generously compensated positions that other people are vying for, but then judge Fani Willis guilty because they are certain the promise of a free vacation is enough motive for them to judge her guilty, it is the worst kind of double standard. The NYT and so-called liberal media embraces that double standard, but I hope readers of this blog don’t get fooled by a narrative posted by a biased observer that excludes all of the testimony that exonerates Fani Willis and shows that the entire basis for this hearing was a fraud.
And this person knows that, or he would NOT have suddenly pivoted to posting at least 3 or 4 different times in the last two days about how Willis is absolutely guilty of perjury. Remember when this person previously said Willis was absolutely guilty of a conflict of interest? That right wing lie has been disproved, so now it’s a pivot to “perjury”. Anyone who condemns Willis for perjury but gives Kavanaugh a pass is showing their own implicit bias.
NYCPSP,
I don’t think it’s fair to accuse another commenter of racism.
He expresses his views. You express yours.
Don’t pull the race card.
Is it okay to mention that a person condemns Claudine Gay in a very different way than they condemn Neri Oxman? Is okay to mention that a person condemns Fani Willis as a perjurer and not Brett Kavanaugh?
I am sorry I called it racist. There is probably some other explanation for the double standard.
But – and this is NOT an allusion to any commenter here – I have read some good articles about how the reactions to Fani Willis’ testimony do reflect some biases.
Just like those biases were reflected in the way that the NYT covered Claudine Gay’s “plagiarism” as a very serious issue that discredits her and calls into question her integrity, and as soon as another news organization learned that Neri Oxman’s plagiarism was far worse, the NYT wrote one article about how charges of plagiarism are being weaponized, with Neri Oxman as the victim.
Maybe race had nothing to do with that, but it is a double standard. And the NYT coverage of Fani Willis exemplifies a similar double standard.
Sex with a fellow prosecutor is being weaponized against Fani Willis. Once she is destroyed and has to step down, and a more privileged prosecutor is found to have been hooking up with fellow prosecutors, the NYT will write a serious analysis of how sex is being weaponized.
The NYT should be writing those stories about the weaponizing of these charges NOW, not helping to weaponize it right up until it used against someone privileged and connected.
NYCPSP, say whatever you want but please try not to attack other commenters. Your views are your views. You back them up. Just don’t use them as a cudgel against others. Civility and forbearance are virtues.
She also lies constantly about what I’ve said. Not sure whether it’s intentional or because she gets so carried away with what’s in her head that she can’t see what’s on the page in front of her. Anyway, my approach is generally going to be to let her go on and on. Engaging her directly just sends everything into a spiral.
I think that it’s mostly that she doesn’t pay attention to what’s on the page. She gets an idea in her head, and that is the reality, as opposed to, you know, actual reality. Once she gets that idea in her head, no amount of pointing out what was actually said gets through. It’s really quite strange. You can say Grass is green. She will say that you said it is purple. Then, when you quote yourself to show her, grass is green, she writes a 20-paragraph essay about how you said that grass is purple. And it just goes on in that manner. It’s frustrating and strange.
The other MO is she says something false. You send proof that it was false. And then she simply repeats the falsehood over and over and over again in multiple pages. Again, no amount of providing evidence gets through. I don’t know how many times she kept repeating that I lied about the meaning of the word hospice as used by that center in Oklahoma that cares for disabled people. No matter how many times I explained that I was sharing THAT CENTER’S definition of hospice as a mode of care, she just didn’t get it. It would not get through. And then there would be another endless diatribe about how I wouldn’t even admit that I had misused the word hospice. No, NYC, as I told you, I shared how THE CENTER used the word to describe its activity. And then another endless diatribe about how I simply won’t admit MY mistake.
It’s hopeless. So, in general, my plan is simply not to engage with this utter nonsense. It’s hopeless and a complete waste of time. One cannot converse when nothing gets through.
Bob, do not engage in pointless exchanges. Please.
It’s like trying to argue with Trump. There are like 30 things she’s said in this thread that would need to be corrected if I were it embark down that road. The project of engaging to correct those things would generate another 30 things that need to be corrected. It’s sisyphean. Better to just let it burn out and trust that others are able to tell truth from fiction.
Anyway, I’m sure these last few comments are going to generate a new firestorm of insanity so I’m going to revert to my quiet period policy.
Same here
Thank you, FLERP.
Forbearance is a virtue.
“Forbearance is also a virtue”
Shouldn’t “forbearance” include refraining from writing disingenuous comments implying that Fani Willis committed perjury in her testimony on Thursday?
Isn’t that a better example of “forbearance” than writing a comment implying Fani Willis committed perjury, replying with personal insults when your unwarranted attack on Fani’s integrity is challenged, and only then professing to believe in “forbearance” – when it’s time to defend a comment you should have had the forbearance not to post at all?
I always loved this blog because you valued the truth, not hyped scandals and smearing women as “perjurers” without presenting any credible evidence to support it.
If that’s changing because people no longer have the forbearance to refrain from mischaracterizing a victim of the right wing smear machine as having committed the crime of perjury, then I don’t know what happened.
If someone wants to insinuate Fani Willis committed perjury, it seems like at a bare minimum, they should have to cite some specific examples. I have been watching Fani’s testimony and haven’t seen any.
It’s ironic that there’s sympathy for Navalny being victimized here, after being convicted in a Russia show trial. Yet where is the outrage about this show trial? I watched Willis sit through hours of testimony where multiple pro-Trump lawyers looking to politicize a consensual romantic relationship were given extreme leeway by a Republican-appointed judge to smear Fani – asking vague questions with nasty innuendo. Fani handled it with aplomb, going to great lengths to re-frame the inappropriate questions.
I watched a woman being forthcoming despite being subjected to a witch hunt, and I come here to read a very odd post saying it is a fair inference that Fani committed perjury. Say what?? Where did that “inference” that Fani is a perjurer come from?
I believed that this was the kind of blog where almost everyone would challenge that kind of smear of Fani’s integrity.
Instead, I am the bad guy. I guess I am suffering from cognitive decline because I read someone “inferring” that Fani committed perjury as an unwarranted smear of Fani’s integrity. When did implying someone committed perjury stop being an attack on someone’s integrity? When did attacks like that become acceptable on this blog?
I hope anyone who can spend the 2 hours will watch Fani’s testimony themselves.
NYCPSP,
I hope Fani is completely exonerated.
My comment about “forbearance” was intended to praise civility.
I ask commenters not to engage in endless disputation.
It’s boring.
I have asked you and FLERP to stop as well as you and Bob.
When FLERP said he was done with the disputation, I was pleased.
Your comments are frequently insightful, and I appreciate them.
Don’t be so fast to take offense.
Good to hear you, Diane, and read Carol Burris in Cambridge University Press saying the same thing, that it is a public responsibility to provide common schools, not a consumer’s responsibility to shop for private schools in a market that, once completely privatized, quickly descends into being such like looking for rolls of toilet paper as the neighborhood goes into quarantine because of a new virus.
“FLERP!
February 17, 2024 at 10:07 am
Continuing my last thought, there’s actually a fair inference that both Wade and Willis perjured themselves yesterday.”
Diane Ravitch,
Imagine if flerp! had written:
“there’s a fair inference from reading Diane Ravitch’s blog that Diane Ravitch is a liar”.
That shouldn’t be acceptable, unless the person can come up with some specific examples to justify what is an extremely nasty attack on your integrity.
It’s also not acceptable when that attack is directed at Fani Willis.
Even though I am frustrated with the coverage of this hearing in the mainstream media, I have not seen coverage of legal experts asserting Fani Willis committed perjury during her testimony.
If flerp! says it is a “fair inference” that Fani DID commit perjury, he should be able to offer up some examples. Not just general innuendo to condemn her.
Diane, you asked us to be “civil” and I do not think it is “civil” to allow people to call people “liars” — as flerp! also does to me — without asking them to follow up with some kind of reasonable justification.
If flerp! believes I misunderstood what he wanted us to believe about Fani Willis — that her testimony included perjury but she will probably get away with it — then he should respond to me in a civil matter. What does it mean when someone posts “there’s actually a fair inference that both Wade and Willis perjured themselves yesterday” but they can’t give a single example where it would be a “fair inference” that Willis committed perjury?
I respect your blog because you ask people to be respectful. They should mean that they stop making allegations that they are unwilling to support.
My posts are long because I don’t just launch insults, I make an effort to support what I say with facts.
If someone criticizes something I write, I respond and try to address their criticisms. I don’t do what Bob and flerp! do and just keep launching insults at them instead of defending what I wrote.
I explained why I objected to flerp!’s post about Fani Willis being a perjuror. Instead of explaining why he did so, flerp! just called me a liar. That isn’t civil. It’s just a page out of the right wing playbook.