She said what she said
Friday, Nov 1, 2019 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Several commenters yesterday hotly disputed this quote by Rep. Hernandez…
State Rep. Elizabeth Hernandez, D-Cicero, said the idea that one of her colleagues had been wearing a wire was disappointing.
“Because for those who try and work in such a way to build that trust among the public, the unfortunate actions of a few really impact all,” she said.
* Some examples…
Pretty sure Hernandez’s comments were taken out of context but by all means lets trust Center Square to get it right.
It sounds like Hernandez was referring to Arroyo’s actions, not the wire. Center Square does not seem to be reporting in good faith - shocker.
Hernandez’s remarks were clearly about Arroyo and Sandoval, not the cooperating witness. Always bet on Center Square to get it wrong.
Hernandez’s remarks were clearly about Arroyo and Sandoval, not the cooperating witness. Get it right
* Full Hernandez quote from the video which was above the story
The thought about somebody wearing a wire saddens me to no length because for so long as a legislator, I’ve been in office for 14 years, my effort, my strong effort has always to build trust among the public. And, um, when you hear of this this is what kind of takes us back. Because for those who try and work in such a way to build that trust among the public, the unfortunate actions of a few really impact all.
- Bruce (no not him) - Friday, Nov 1, 19 @ 9:43 am:
Everybody hears what they want to hear.
- Norseman - Friday, Nov 1, 19 @ 9:46 am:
It’s the IPI propaganda outlet so “out of context” and misrepresentation is what they do.
- NIU Grad - Friday, Nov 1, 19 @ 9:46 am:
It’s an awkward quote, so I could see everyone seeing what they want to see. It could theoretically mean that she’s saddened that someone has to wear a wire…but with Springfield culture who knows.
- Unpopular - Friday, Nov 1, 19 @ 9:47 am:
Sounds like the semi-incoherent ramblings of a person that knows they have likely been recorded talking to a person who was wearing a wire.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Nov 1, 19 @ 9:49 am:
In the #FakeNews era of real and fighting the truth of “your lying eyes”, I go back to words matter, and you said what you said.
Eat it, own it, you’re not this POTUS and/or have that zombie-like follower base.
You are not required to answer any and every question, but when you engage in answering, you own those words.
- Randomly Selected - Friday, Nov 1, 19 @ 9:52 am:
My grandma would always say “if you’re bad enough to do the crime then you’re bad enough to do the time”. In a lot of communities it shows a lack of accountability if you commit a crime and then try to turn other people in to save yourself. The lack of accountability is what she’s referring to here. Probably could have been said better but this will resonate with a lot of people.
- Skeptic - Friday, Nov 1, 19 @ 9:56 am:
It hits my eyes as a too-wordy version of “One bad apple spoils the whole bunch” where she’s worked for 14 years to be part of the “bunch” and the situation where a wire was involved (regardless of who wore it or why) was the bad one. Just MHO.
- ??? - Friday, Nov 1, 19 @ 9:58 am:
NIU Grad, that’s how I read it, too. The rest of the quote regarding public trust and the “unfortunate actions of a few” suggest she was disappointed that some legislators engage in behavior that requires investigation and wiretapping
- Rich Hill - Friday, Nov 1, 19 @ 10:02 am:
Jake Guzik would be proud.
- DTAG - Friday, Nov 1, 19 @ 10:06 am:
It could me a lot of things:
Bad rep put wired up senator in position to wear a wire.
Bad senator put himself in a position to have to make a deal with the feds to wear a wire.
That bad senator was bad for wearing a wire and recording the bad rep.
- revvedup - Friday, Nov 1, 19 @ 10:08 am:
Her statement was so unclear that it leads to at least two interpretations. Of course, Center Way Off Square picked the controversial one.
- Responsa - Friday, Nov 1, 19 @ 10:14 am:
Since there’s such confusion, has anyone from the media actually asked Elizabeth what she meant to convey by that word salad?
- Rich Miller - Friday, Nov 1, 19 @ 10:19 am:
===Since there’s such confusion===
There is no confusion.
- Occasional Quipper - Friday, Nov 1, 19 @ 10:22 am:
oops… 10:22 was me
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Nov 1, 19 @ 10:24 am:
=== Well, in just over a year we get to see which party’s zombie-like followers can produce more votes than the other party’s zombie-like followers.===
The benchmark in Illinois is Trump -16 points.
We’ll see if Trump betters that here.
===Since there’s such confusion===
“I need to spin a bad take so I’ll say ‘you’re confused’ and try to clean up the mess…”
- Slow News Day? - Friday, Nov 1, 19 @ 10:26 am:
It must be… Rep. Hernandez was talking about the malfeasance of a few legislators, causes the public’s trust, of the other legislators, to continue to slide.
What’s next? Sentence skeletons of her quote?
- Perrid - Friday, Nov 1, 19 @ 10:31 am:
I still don’t get her comment then. How does someone wearing a wire damage the public’s trust? The NEED for someone to wear a wire might. Or do you think she meant making corruption public is damaging to the public trust? Maybe, but it’s so silly to say the sunlight causes damage, instead of the corruption. I just can’t put the pieces together.
Of course, if you assume she isn’t actually worried about the public trust, just herself, the pieces fit better, but that’s not what she actually said.
- lake county democrat - Friday, Nov 1, 19 @ 10:40 am:
Count me as one of the hopelessly confused. It’s a mess of a quote but the most logical take I can make of it isn’t that she’s angry at the wire-wearer.
- “The wire” saddens her. But nothing that follows is consistent with being angry at the act of wearing the wire but rather angry at what the wire represents.
- Why? Because for 14 years she’s tried to restore the public trust after past periods of scandal.
- Most of her colleagues try to do that, and a few bad apples undoes all that work.
- Quibbler - Friday, Nov 1, 19 @ 10:51 am:
Even with the full quote, it’s impossible to read it the way Rich presented it without extreme bad faith.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Nov 1, 19 @ 11:04 am:
=== it’s impossible to read it the way Rich presented it without extreme bad faith.===
“I need to spin a bad take so I’ll say ‘you’re confused’ and try to clean up the mess…”
That’s not working…
“I blame those who read words. It’s on them”
It’s like the stages of grief we’re watching.
- Langhorne - Friday, Nov 1, 19 @ 11:08 am:
Zeke used to advise new members, “if you are ever interviewed by the FBI, make sure to have your lawyer there. Not bec you did anything wrong. But you dont want to get someone else in trouble by saying the wrong thing.”
He said it for the shock value. It worked.
- Fav Human - Friday, Nov 1, 19 @ 11:35 am:
I think she MEANT to say she was saddened that some legislators betray the public trust.
But it’s VERY easy to think she’s sad someone is wearing a wire.
- Say What? - Friday, Nov 1, 19 @ 12:26 pm:
Keep it simple. Marty, Louie and Elizabeth will never be confused with the fastest birds who ever flew.
- West Side the Best Side - Friday, Nov 1, 19 @ 12:44 pm:
Seems like “somebody (singular) wearing a wire” because of the “actions of a few (plural)” reflects on her disappointment with the few who caused the wearing of the wire. At least the Chicago alderpersons were clear they were mad at the one who wore the wire.
- Pelonski - Friday, Nov 1, 19 @ 1:20 pm:
I don’t see that as a clear statement that she has a problem with a colleague wearing a wire. She could just as easily be stating her disappointment that one was necessary. I don’t know anything about her, so I may be off base, but this has the appearance of people seeing what they want to see in the statement.
- Quibbler - Friday, Nov 1, 19 @ 1:48 pm:
=== I need to spin a bad take so I’ll say ‘you’re confused’ and try to clean up the mess… ===
I frankly could care less about Hernandez, but the context makes it clear that she committed the verbal equivalent of a scrivener’s error. The rest of the quote is about the public trust, which makes no sense if her complaint was about one legislator wearing a wire on another. It was an awkward turn of phrase that Rich chose to frame in the worst possible light (which is his right as it’s his blog). He got called on it and is doubling down, which is his right too. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- Rich Miller - Friday, Nov 1, 19 @ 1:57 pm:
===she committed the verbal equivalent of a scrivener’s error===
Yeah. Right. Keep spinning that fast and you’ll pass out.
- Quibbler - Friday, Nov 1, 19 @ 2:10 pm:
okay, buddy.
- NWL Grad - Friday, Nov 1, 19 @ 2:18 pm:
The straightforward reading of this is that she’s upset someone wore a wire. I don’t think it takes “bad faith” or stretching to get to that interpretation because it’s literally what she said. It’s not out of context or misquoted.
I think where this gets messy for people is that it’s hard to believe she actually said that publicly. It’s something you’d expect someone to be saying in private or just think loudly because it’s so monumentally stupid for a politician to admit they’re mad at the wire wearer. I’m not sure what she actually meant to say, but it is what she did say.
- Perrid - Friday, Nov 1, 19 @ 2:36 pm:
NWL, but the reason she said she was sad also makes no sense. There’s no logic connecting the wearing of a wire and damaging public trust. Being an FBI informant does not damage the public’s trust, the corruption caught on the wire does. I don’t see how you can honestly ignore that contradiction when you draw conclusions about the statement in its entirety. It makes so much more sense if she meant to say the corruption itself made her sad. I don’t know the Senator from Adam (uh, or Eve? I don’t think I’ve ever heard that version of the saying), I have no stake in this, I just don’t think the negative interpretation of the statement makes sense.
- Three Dimensional Checkers - Friday, Nov 1, 19 @ 3:08 pm:
It’s like what Richard J Daley’s press aid would say: “Print what he meant, not what he said.”
- R A T - Friday, Nov 1, 19 @ 3:22 pm:
Hernandez said what she said and what she meant to say. It is you commenters with biased eyes that are arguing with each other.
And since this is an opinion blog, my opinion is that her comment was spot on and no reason she needs to do anything. It is sad some tax dodger needs to be a snitch to catch others for the Feds but especially a fellow senator doing it.
- NWL Grad - Friday, Nov 1, 19 @ 3:25 pm:
So, I actually disagree with you Perrid. It’s not unprecedented or even really uncommon to hear arguments that revealing information damages public trust which basically ignore the underlying behavior. I saw it with the Snowden leaks, and we’re seeing it now with the White House leaks. I think Devin Nunes had a line about it with the recent Ukraine phone call leaks actually.
Is it a particularly sane response to financial corruption leaks? Of course not, but it wouldn’t shock me to hear it either. People in their legislative bubbles may well think this is just “how things are done.” While public trust in the integrity of Illinois politicians was basically at zero before this mess, it’s likely even lower now. I don’t find the other interpretation of what she MEANT to say implausible, but I don’t think Rich’s take is implausible either. Maybe she’ll clarify.