Reiterating the NEA’s denial about the purpose of the notorious August 10, 2009 teleconference, Chairman Rocco Landesman doubled-down Tuesday:
“Fact 3: ‘This call was not a means to promote any legislative agenda and any suggestions to that end are simply false.”
Two weeks ago, the NEA’s initial denial stated:
“This call was not a means to promote any legislative agenda and any suggestions to that end are simply false.”
The White House issued its denial on September 9:
“the Aug. 10 teleconference ‘was not meant to promote any legislative agenda.”
Utterly consistent messaging, one must agree.
However, prior inconsistencies matter. Buffy Wicks’ clearly stated on the August 10th call:
“I’m at the Office of Public Engagement here at the White House… we work under Valerie Jarrett, she’s one of our fantastic leaders and Tina Tchen… I’m actually in the White House and working towards furthering this agenda, this very aggressive agenda… we need you, and we’re going to need your help, and we’re going to come at you with some specific asks here…”
Ms. Wicks closed:
“We need your guys’ help to promote this. We know that you all have channels and ability to get the message out far greater than we do here and the president’s put out the call… we know that you all are very powerful voices of change in your own right, and we’re looking to you for your help on that.”
Therefore, how can it be true that the conference call was not in fact meant to “Promote any legislative agenda,” as the NEA and the White House collectively assert?
Does the phrase “promote any legislative agenda” have any legal origins or ramifications that would explain its implication?
What significance might dwell in the phrase’s ostensibly well-coordinated use?