Liz Cheney and the Firehose of Truth: Using the Republicans' Text Messages Against Them

“We are under siege in the Capitol.”

“We are all helpless.”

Those are just two of the text messages that Republican Congresswoman Liz Cheney quoted in her speech to Congress on December 13, 2021.  She read a series of text messages sent to former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. The messages all date to the January 6, 2021 riot at the United States Capitol. The messages were presumably from Republican politicians. Cheney cited messages, one after the other, that asked Donald Trump to call off the attackers.

In other words, she unloaded a firehose of truth, proving her point by quoting message, after message, after message.

Liz Cheney, official portrait

 Cheney gave far more evidence than she needed. Much more than the minimum. Such massive evidence can be persuasive; the RAND corporation shows how pro-Trump Russian propaganda outlets use the “Firehose of Falsehood” to spread propaganda. Propaganda artists spew out more lies than anyone has time to refute. In contrast, Cheney used a firehose of truth. She gave the proof. That is why, helpless in the face of her facts, conservatives have not even tried to rebut her.

A firehose of truth

Unlike so many speakers, Cheney had done her homework. The effect was devastating.

 

Cheney States Her Point

Cheney’s thesis was that Former President Donald Trump had failed to do his duty to control the January 6 rioters. That crowd was shouting things like “stop the steal” and “hang Mike Pence.” Their announced goal was to use violence to stop the counting of the electoral votes that made Joe Biden President. Trump delayed for hours before asking the rioters to go home. Cheney’s secondary thesis proved that Fox News hosts knew that Trump was behind the riot, even though they would broadcast false accusations that the rioters were left-wingers.

To prove those points, Cheney read a string of text messages that Meadows had produced for the congressional committee investigating January 6. She read from a manuscript in a calm, nearly expressionless voice. She proved her points by turning people’s own words against them.

She began with her thesis:

“Mr. Meadows received numerous text messages that he produced without any privilege claim, imploring that Mr. Trump take the specific action that we all know his duty required. These text messages leave no doubt that the White House knew exactly what was happening here at the Capitol.”

Cheney Proves Her Point 

She then read a string of text messages sent to Meadows:

“One text Mr. Meadows received, ‘You are under siege at the Capitol.’ Another, ‘they have reached the Capitol.’ And a third, ‘Mark, protesters are literally storming the Capitol. Breaking windows and doors, rushing in. Is Trump going to say something?” ‘There is an armed standoff at the House Chamber door,’ and another from someone inside the Capitol, ‘We are all helpless.’”

Again, without a break, barely pausing for breath, she continued her firehose:

“Dozens of texts, including from Trump administration officials, urged immediate action by the president: ‘POTUS has to come out firmly and tell the protesters to dissipate. Someone is going to get killed.’ In another, ‘Mark, he needs to stop this. Now.’ ‘Tell them to go home.’ POTUS needs to calm this s—t down.”

Notice that, by this point, Cheney was simply reading a string of text messages, all on the same theme, all directly supporting her point. Not only their clarity, but their sheer numbers, rendered her point irrefutable.

She then turned her massive evidence against the duplicitous Fox News hosts who, only a few hours later, would be telling people that the January 6 rioters were actually left-wingers who supported Biden:

“Multiple Fox News hosts knew the president needed to act immediately. They texted Mr. Meadows and he turned over those texts. ‘Mark, the president needs to tell the people in the Capitol to go home. ...This is hurting all of us…He is destroying his legacy,’ Laura Ingraham wrote. ‘Please get him on TV. Destroying everything you have accomplished.’ Brian Kilmeade wrote. Can you make a statement? … Ask people to leave the Capitol.’ Sean Hannity urged.”

Cheney’s long string of quotations eliminated all doubt. We all understand beyond question that Republican leaders and Fox News hosts knew that the rioters were Trump’s people and were under his control. The sheer power of Cheney’s speech is reflected by the fact that, for the most part, conservative media are making little effort to refute her. For the most part, they are ignoring her speech. They are ignoring a speech that no one could ignore. It was not until the next day that Fox News made even a feeble effort to discuss the text messages. Trump himself remains silent. As of this writing, I can find nothing about Cheney’s speech on the websites of the conservative National Review, Breitbart, or other right-wing outlets.

So, for the moment at least, Liz Cheney and her allies on the January 6 committee now control the public agenda. Even more, when Cheney mentioned “dozens of texts, including from Trump administration officials,” she tantalized the audience by hinting that the January 6 Committee has tanks full of more evidence. Trump’s supporters are no longer setting the agenda.

And She Gave a Public Speaking Lesson  

Thousands of years ago, the Greek philosopher Aristotle explained that the two essential parts of the speech are to state your case and prove it. That is exactly what Liz Cheney did. She stated her point in simple, bold language. She then presented massive evidence to support her point.

So, we learned a lot about the January 6 Capitol riots from Cheney’s brief speech. She also taught us two public speaking lessons:

1. State your case and prove it. Good advice from the old days.

2. Do your homework and show your audience the facts.

Liz Cheney showed how it is done. She made it seem simple. Do your homework and prove your point. Now, although the conservative media are thrashing around to change the subject, it looks as if the irresistible truth is coming out.

______________

Earlier Post: Speakers Need Research: Donald Trump Suggested Injecting Disinfectants to Cure the Coronavirus

Earlier Post: Mike Lee Tries to Make Fun of the Green New Deal but Only Makes Fun of Himself (P.S.: Speakers Need Research)

Earlier Post: Liz Cheney's Speech Against Trump's False Election Claims

Earlier Post: Liz Cheney Reminded Us of Our Values
_____________

P.S.: Cheney’s expressionless delivery was, oddly enough, perfect for the occasion. Instead of sounding like an angry radical, she projected a serious demeanor. Reading from a manuscript ensured that she got the quotations exactly right.

P.P.S: There are minor differences between Cheney’s text and the speech as she delivered it. As usual, her prepared text was polished. She ad-libbed during the presentation to make a few points extra clear. For the most part, this post uses the speech as delivered. C-SPAN provided a video and rush transcript. NPR published a polished text. To understand everything she said and meant, we should pay attention to both versions. None of the differences affect her message. 

Image: House Facebook page

Donald Trump Created the "Illusion of Proof" in His April 13, 2020 Coronavirus Task Force Press Conference

Image: WhiteHouse.gov

When CBS correspondent Paula Reid asked President Donald Trump at yesterday’s Coronavirus Task Force Briefing what he accomplished in February after buying the nation time by restricting travel from China, he promised to give her a list. His exact words: “will give you a list.” Was a list  forthcoming? No, of course not.

Likewise, during the same event, when CNN correspondent Kaitlan Collins asked who told President Trump that he had “absolute authority” over when the economy reopens, he fussed and argued a bit, and said,  “You know what we're going to do? We're going to write up papers on this.” Has the paper been forthcoming? No, of course not. In fact, he backed off his foolish claim the next day.

Trump created the impression that he had solid research behind his claims. However, he had no evidence at all behind them. So, like a stage magician, he created the illusion that he could prove his silly statements. Crooked politicians have used this tactic for years. More than half a century ago, communication professor Barnet Baskerville, one of the great speech and debate scholars of his generation, wrote an important article about “The Illusion of Proof.” We all know what proof is, do we not? Proof occurs when a speaker gives facts, expert opinion, and reasons to support a position. Illusion occurs when we think we see something that was never real. Capable people give evidence. Stage magicians don't give evidence; instead, they create illusions. The illusion of proof occurs when a speaker makes it sound as if he or she is giving proof, but is giving no proof at all. It's fun to watch a stage magician create an illusion. It is dangerous when politicians create them.

The illusion of proof is different from when a speaker gives bad proof or makes bad arguments. The illusion of proof arises when the speaker makes it sound as if there is proof, even though there is no proof whatsoever. Baskerville’s example was Richard Nixon’s Checkers Speech, in which Nixon talked about evidence that his lawyers and accountants had prepared, but never actually said what that evidence was. We hear this kind of thing when people spread conspiracy theories: “just you wait, and we will soon see proof that President Obama forged his birth certificate.” Or: “just you wait, and we will soon see proof that China created the coronavirus in a biowarfare laboratory.”

All of that is nonsense. If you have proof, say what it is. If you don’t have proof, you can, if you are dishonest and sneaky enough, promise that the proof will come later. Or, if you are really nasty, you can say that you have evidence, but say that it is secret. The public should never let this trick fool them.

Let’s start with what Paula Reid asked. Here’s the entire exchange, courtesy of a Salon transcript. (I added the italics.):

"Reid: What did you do with that time that you bought? The argument is that you bought yourself some time. You didn't use it to prepare hospitals. You didn't use it to ramp up testing. Right now, nearly 20 million people are unemployed.

Trump: You're so disgraceful. It's so disgraceful the way you say that….

Reid: Tens of thousands of Americans are dead. How is … this rant supposed to make people feel confident in an unprecedented crisis?… What did your administration do in February for the time that your travel ban bought you?

Trump: A lot.

Reid: What?

Trump: A lot, and in fact, we'll give you a list…. We did a lot. Look, look, you know you're a fake."

So, what did President Trump do? “A lot,” he said. What specific things did he do? He said he would give her list. He then called her a “fake,” which is classic misdirection, a standard magician's method. (It was also an ill-mannered thing to say.) Seriously if Trump had done something, wouldn’t he remember? If he had actually done something, would he not want to brag about it right then and there? And, guess what, we still haven’t seen the alleged list. Trump created the illusion that he and his staff  had done a lot of work to provide evidence, but, in real life, there was no evidence of any kind.

He created the illusion of proof a second time. Does the president have unlimited authority? A large part of the briefing consisted of rambling and dissension over this question: “There is debate over what authority you have to order the country reopened.”

Collins refocused attention on this issue after Trump changed the subject:

"Collins: You said when someone is president of the United States, their authority is total. That is not true. Who told you that?

Trump: You know what we're going to do? We're going to write up papers on this.

Collins: Has any governor agreed that you have the authority to decide when their states …

Trump: I haven't asked anybody because. … You know why? Because I don't have to ….

Collins: But who told you the president has the total authority?

Trump: Enough!"

So, President Trump said something ridiculous: that the president has absolute authority. After other questioners had brought the subject up, Collins nailed it: “That is not true. Who told you that?”

Obviously, no qualified person had told him such a thing. Trump said that his staff – “we” – “were going to write up papers on this.” Incompetent though President Trump’s staff might be, he doesn’t employ anyone stupid enough as to think that the president has absolute authority over anything. Trump as much admitted it: “I haven’t asked anybody because.… You know why? Because I don’t have to…” Collins followed up: “who told you…?” Trump refused to answer: “Enough!”

Again, Trump created the illusion of proof. He said that “We are going to write up papers on this.” When he said that, he created the impression – an obviously false impression – that his staff had been working on the legal and constitutional issues and were prepared to produce a document about it. In real life, however, he talked with no one, no papers were forthcoming, and there was no constitutional or legal basis for what he said. There are no papers on the subject and there never will be a paper on the subject. It’s ridiculous. But the way Trump phrasef things created the illusion that actual research had been conducted.

The public would like to assume that the President of the United States has access to experts and research capabilities, and that he says things that have merit. Dream on. 

It’s one thing to present terrible arguments. I suppose everyone makes bad arguments occasionally. It’s something else, also bad, to make a controversial claim and give no evidence for it. The illusion of proof is something even worse: by using misdirection and spreading confusion, a speaker creates the impression that evidence exists and even says something about what the evidence is like, but the evidence doesn't exist. In some ways, it’s worse than lying: when Trump says things that are not true, that’s shameful. Trump said that he would produce "a list." He said that he would produce "papers." Of course, that was untrue. When he says that evidence exists and will be forthcoming, when, in fact, there is no evidence and no evidence will ever appear, the level of deception is even worse than mere lying.

Here is a complete video on C-SPAN of the press conference with a rough transcript. Please note that the official but sneaky White House transcript is incomplete, and it omits substantial chunks of the exchanges above. Baskerville's article is not readily available on the Internet, but a large library should be able to get you a copy. Here's the citation:  Barnet Baskerville, "The Illusion of Proof," Western Speech, 25 (1961): 236-242. The journal is now called Western Journal of Communication.