cantor's out

by russell

Eric Cantor lost his primary to economics professor David Brat.  Cantor spent about $5M, Brat about $200K.

What does this mean (if anything)?

Is it a demonstration of the ongoing vitality of the Tea Party movement?

Proof that money doesn't always prevail, even in Washington DC?

Evidence that people around Richmond VA really, really don't want any more Mexicans in the US?

Is Cantor the victim of a "throw the bums out" mentality, regardless of who the "bums" are?

Your thoughts, please.

Comments

[Countme-In]

http://www.mediaite.com/online/hillary-clinton-makes-peace-with-her-rnc-squirrel-stalker/

Ah ha!

Armed Republican and NRA domestic terrorist and noted guitar shredder Ted Nugent latest plans to assassinate Hillary Clinton (and Barack Obama), a move which he has outlined graphically in threatening rants while brandishing the murder weapons in public venues before sexually engorged teenaged females who are then led backstage post-rant to be initiated into the murder plots, are taking shape.

Here's what I think is happening in the video evidence presented above and what is about to go down.

Nugent, inveterate squirrel hunter and consumer extraordinaire of squirrel flesh (he's known as the Galloping Gourmet of Michigan, not only among the squirrel community of Michigan, but also by the teenaged female fans who visit his home in the woods to feast on his squirrel sausage and squirrel sweetbreads and giblets) is being signaled by the RNC and its Gigantic Campaign Squirrel to lure Hillary Clinton, and probably Barack Obama too, into gunshot range with a large hunk of squirrel meat and when his automatic gunfire rings out, killing both Hillary and the ersatz squirrel (dirty, dirty animals, ratf*ckers with tails is what they are), and then Nugent can plead that he was merely filming a squirrel-hunting segment for his numerous TV enterprises (The Rocky and Bullshittal Show) and how was he supposed to know Hillary Clinton would be so unwise and silly to actually try to engage in close-in conversation with the very object of squirrel-hunting season, at the very moment Nugent had a bead on him.

The RNC and the IRA will rush to his defense and then claim hysterically that here go the liberals again trying to take our hunting weapons away from us - yet another attempt by Obama to completely disarm us so that squirrels are fee to overrun the country, just because a liberal and ex-government official happened to take a little friendly fire.

[Countme-In]

The Logical End of Things.

Why are the Republican and Libertarian movements, and their Ace-of-Spade Manchurian Candidate actuators in the Republican Media and in their para-military sister organizations like the NRA not being rounded up, tried, prosecuted, and shipped to Death Camps for ordering and supplying the deadly weapons for the murder of government employees and children in public schools?

Why are government agencies not being taken to task on the coverup of their inaction against domestic terror ordered from the highest levels of the Republican Political establishment who throw sand in our faces by faking sideshow internecine warfare between the old fascist wing of the Party and the new Tea Party fascist wing.

Why is Brett Bellmore distracting us from these more important and deadly issues?

[Countme-In]

The Logical End of Things ... link:

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/The_Inevitable_Turns_Out_To_Be_Inevitable

[Nombrilisme Vide]

It's like the IRS's excuse that it would have cost $10 million a year to save those backups instead of wiping them. Intended to sound infeasible to anybody who doesn't realize what a tiny fraction of their total IT budget $10 million was.

It'd've been ~0.5% of the Information Services budget, based on 2013 numbers. Which is really a lot if you consider it's for one program, and that we're talking about a gov't agency that's supposed to be finding ways to cut costs (because the bathtub people are always pushing for all gov't agencies to be more "fiscally responsible" all the time).

But here's the thing: The IRS, a number of federal agencies, also had management using private email and even email under fake names to evade FOIA requests and Congressional inquiries. That's an entirely separate scandal, without a great deal of partisan salience.

So, we know that the same agencies which use antiquated backups for critical records, which allows embarrassing or incriminating records to be successfully memory holed, had management who were thinking in terms of evading review.

So, why should I believe it's incompetence?

Because the fallacy of composition? Because your "reason" on offer here to deem the IRS to have been malicious instead of incompetent is that in a large organization there were some people acting shady in a manner contrary to institutional standards, therefore all people in the same professional tier are suspect?

[Brett Bellmore]

The fallacy fallacy.

[Tony P.]

Argument A supports Proposition X.
A is fallacious, but that doesn't disprove X.

Argument B supports Proposition X.
B is fallacious, but that doesn't disprove X.

Argument C supports Proposition X.
C is fallacious, but that doesn't disprove X.

Rinse, repeat, until you get to:

Argument X supports Proposition X.
X is fallacious, but that doesn't disprove X.

QED

--TP

[Nombrilisme Vide]

Doesn't really apply here, Brett. You're claiming you'll tentatively believe it was incompetence instead of malice, except for this one thing, where the one thing is fallacious reasoning. The single omitted paragraph that went between the chunks I quoted above:

Now, I'm willing, tentatively, to believe they did things that way, until we have actual records from before the IRS targeting scandal showing what their practices were before they needed an excuse. Sometimes inertial drives large organizations to do stupid things.

So to use the language of your link, you're claiming you'd tentatively accept Proposition ~P (where P is the IRS acted maliciously), except for Argument A (your little compositional argument regarding how some managers at the IRS used unofficial email accounts for official business). Per you, the only reason you're rejecting ~P is because of Argument A. This is not at all what your "fallacy fallacy" applies to. That would apply if you said P because A, B, C, D, E, and I pointed out that A was fallacious, and therefore declared ~P. That's not happening here. You're saying (though kinda unsurprisingly, it looks to have been a bit of a rhetorical flourish rather than a sincere utterance) that P because A, period. In this context it is so not fallacious of me to reject your little diversion. If it was actually true that the only reason you were assuming malice instead of incompetence was your compositional fallacy (which, ya know, is what you actually said above), you have no way to cling to your assertion of malice. If it was merely a rhetorical ploy, then obviously you have other reasons to cling to malice.

[russell]

if it's a federal agency, it's oppressive and dedicated to the curtailment of our liberties.

especially if the "we" whose liberties are being curtailed are conservatives, because liberals are the natural clients and enablers of the federal leviathan, so the feds don't like to step on their toes too hard or too often.

but conservatives are fair game.

all of the above can be assumed and requires no evidence, it's simply and blatantly self-evident.

because hobnails.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I'm tentatively willing to believe they actually did use the described data destruction procedure, baring evidence to the contrary, rather than fabricating it after the fact. I suspect that they kept it, despite the fact that it was grossly inadequate because it allowed for evidence to be destroyed. Since that they were trying to evade oversight is already established. But that's speculation.

However, malice is already established. They have already admitted to subjecting Tea Party organizations to especially harsh treatment based on partisan criteria, Lerner has already taken the 5th. So I'm not willing to credit six independent hard drives crashed in a short period after they were on notice that the jig was up, by accident.

The dog does not eat your homework six days running by accident. I have no reason to be that credulous, this isn't MY party's scandal.

[Countme-In]

I believe we need to have the Attorney General of the United States of Brett Nation look into these matters and submit a rifle report in triplicate before House Republican Committees.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/blm-shooting-suspect-statutory-attorney-general

[_cleek_]

They have already admitted to subjecting Tea Party organizations to especially harsh treatment based on partisan criteria

"especially harsh treatment" = easier treatment than the liberal groups got.

right-leaning groups denied tax-exempt status : zero

left-leaning groups denied tax-exempt status : three

and as a percentage, three is infinitely more than zero.

[wj]

At the risk of pointing back to the original subject of this thread, has anyone else noticed the interesting battle shaping up in the House? It appears that the current Majority Whip will move up to Majority Leader (replacing Cantor). But who will fill the opening that creates for Majority Whip?

It looks like a serious establishment vs insurgents face-off is in the offing. But will things get settled behind the scenes, or in an actual vote (or series of votes, since there appear to be at least 3 candidates) for the position?

[Countme-In]

The especially harsh treatment referred to is that the members and financiers of the armed Tea Party Nation are taxed at all, period.

No taxation, with or without representation, at any level of government, is the goal.

Being refused tax exempt status for their political fundraising tentacle by the IRS, the very agency the Tea Party collects money from their financiers to abolish, along with all other taxation, is a piddling thing, hardly the main event in the reign of harshness brought down on the heads of the Tea Party as a result of being born in America and participating in the bounty our form of representative government has bestowed on their burdened, put-upon shoulders.

And whatever you do, don't touch their Medicare.

[bobbyp]

However, malice is already established.

Really? How?

Lerner has already taken the 5th.

A novel concept. Is that in the Constitution?

[Ugh]

Lerner has already taken the 5th.

She has. That can be undone by granting her immunity in exchange for her testimony. Issa et. al. won't do it because, I would say, they know her testimony will be consistent with the 41 other IRS employees interviewed by Congress: that the White House had absolutely nothing to do with any of this.

Plus she's taken the 5th, IIRC, not because of any of her actions with respect to the scrutiny of the underlying TEA party applications (which, according to the TIGTA report, she only found out about in in 2011 - AFTER her hard drive had crashed), but for her statements to Congress that appear, at least on their face, to be inconsistent.

Indeed, I don't think there has been any evidence that anything criminal has been done with respect to the underlying issue. Unwise and politically charged, perhaps.

[Countme-In]

"The dog does not eat your homework six days running by accident."

Depends. What breed are we talking about?

Has anyone spilled a Pepsi and/0r cheeseburger leavings on the homework, which might entice even your most self-respecting breed of dog to consume homework?

Sometimes if the blood of patriots and tyrants are spilled on your homework by the overzealous, even stray dogs in packs might show up night after night for dinner.

I attended a public school, and, for a time, had as much contempt for all things in the public sphere as the Tea Party does today, and, as a result, my dog ate my homework roughly every day for two years running.

The problem was I didn't have a dog, so in my mother's notes in response to the teachers' (unionized, they were, and felt they had the right to demand we hand homework in, and on time) inquiries, that dog became the dog that did not eat the homework in the night and I resorted to submitting book reports on "Atlas Shrugged", which no self respecting dog with any taste in his mouth would lay a tooth on.

Then I got sent to a military academy, where the dogs were in "canine units" and were trained to NOT eat anyone's homework no matter the reason.

In fact, they would keep an eye on US to make sure WE didn't eat our homework.

But if you sneaked some cayenne pepper into their dog chow, they would sneeze and whine for a good long time but also conveniently forget to bark when we were returning from AWOL in town to visit the townie girls.

We'd help them with their homework and they'd tell their mothers they were out walking the dog.

[_cleek_]

Plus she's taken the 5th, IIRC, not because of any of her actions with respect to the scrutiny of the underlying TEA party applications ...

also, because she's trying to avoid even more death threats from "conservatives" .

[Countme-In]

In case anyone who read cleek's link regarding the daily routine of death threats directed from the usual suspects toward anyone who works for government or expresses any views whatsoever that contradict conservative dogma, prejudice, and nonsense, I believe I may have spotted evidence in the article's quoting of one of the threats written by the anonymous (a common surname among Americans who oddly enough also tout their higher order individuality despite being too yella to name the bag of rotting bones in which it resides) letter-writer that
contradicts the presumption that conservatives are the only folks who have it in for the IRS ....

... this being the use of the word "karma" in the quoted death threat to describe what Lerner has coming to her, Now, your typical conservative Republican Tea Party type in America would be unlikely to use words derived from the "soft", hippie-like religions of the Indian sub-continent and the Oriental sensibility, but I suspect would use terms more in line with Occidental religious doctrine, such as that of the Republican Party's al Qaeda and other radical, conservative affiliates operating throughout the Mideast.

The words "fatwa" or "Jihad", as misused in similar ways by al Qaeda and conservative, war-loving Americans when they want to f*ck you up, would be a more likely usage, not "Karma", with its suggestion (here I resort to conservative stereotyping to drive home a point) of incense-laden candles burned by politically correct lesbian feminists sitting with their legs tucked under them as they relax on divans and discuss what may come back around and get them because they once forgot to recycle.

No, I conclude, using all of the professional forensic evidence-gathering methods perfected by Inspector Bellmore, that this letter-writer is definitely from one of the liberal groups targeted by the IRS to see if the former were in compliance with the law, evidence which also contradicts previous findings here at "Seat Of The Pants Private Detective Service" that only conservative groups, if any, were targeted unfairly by the IRS.

[Tony P.]

So, Count:

A message sent by "The Angel of Death" to Lerner's husband read, "I hope you are a Christian and believe in heaven and hell. Please tell your wife, Lois, to take the express lane to hell because if she lies to God, like she lied and deceived Americans, I will surely put her there myself.

That's the "karma" guy. (Or gal. Gals can be yahoos too.) I notice Mr (or Ms) Angel does not explicitly profess his (or her) own Christianity, but merely hopes that Mr. Lerner believes in Hell. A pious, upright, dare I say "Christian" hope, you will agree. This, coupled with Mr (or Ms) of-Death's generous offer to do God's work for Him, must surely raise a doubt that we are dealing here with some New-Age hippie slacker.

--TP

[Countme-In]

Well, I knew I'd get into trouble using Brett's evidentiary methodology in trying to present a balanced, nuanced case that it isn't only the hard-line conservatives and their insane, murderous base who threatens death to all who disagree with them.

I suppose, Tony, you are correct. It is pretty much unanimously those on the Right Wing, stoked by the Republican Party and their conservative media via white trash gang hand signals and codewords who are trying to kill the rest of us if we even try to uphold whatever laws they don't like.

New Age hippie slackers: the bane of what could be a militant political Left, too lazy to lock and too stoned to load.

[Marty]

That's what really sets apart the Right, never too loaded to load. Darn hippies can't hold their intoxicants.

[Countme-In]

On the other hand, Marty, the Right's odd habit of placing their weapon so that it points at their gun has its downside, too.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/accidental-shooting-penis-georgia

[Ugh]

The power of spam:

The White House did find three emails where Lerner and White House officials were copied on two third-party tax-assistance inquiries and one spam email.

Proof!

[Snarki, child of Loki]

Good catch Ugh! At LAST a compelling motivation for Obama to order drone strikes on email spammers.

If he doesn't, I might just side with Brett in calling for impeachment.

[thompson]

wj:

But will things get settled behind the scenes, or in an actual vote (or series of votes, since there appear to be at least 3 candidates) for the position?

I believe there is a vote on Thursday with a possible runoff:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/06/18/230762/race-for-house-republican-whip.html

To get a feel for how the average "tea party" member might feel about the candidates, I went to redstate (not my typical hangout).

They don't really like the frontrunner, Scalise:

http://www.redstate.com/2014/06/12/rep-marlin-stutzman-running-house-majority-whip/

http://www.redstate.com/2012/12/05/steve-scalise-fails-the-first-test-for-conservatives/

Although my understanding is Scalise is pretty conservative:

Scalise has a lifetime Club for Growth rating of 90%, and a Heritage Action rating of 81% for this Congress

But just from what I've read (politico, CSM, etc) it seems like the TP candidate is really unlikely. But they said the same thing about Brat.

[Brett Bellmore]

"She has. That can be undone by granting her immunity in exchange for her testimony. Issa et. al. won't do it because, I would say, they know her testimony will be consistent with the 41 other IRS employees interviewed by Congress: that the White House had absolutely nothing to do with any of this."

You're right that she's said inconsistent things, and in doing this she's set up a trap for herself, the kind of trap a grant of immunity can't get you out of, because a grant of immunity today doesn't get you off from committing perjury tomorrow.

She says it was all her idea, Republicans go after her for perjury in saying that. She says it was on Obama's orders, Democrats go after her on perjury in saying that.. (And the Democrats have the better chance of actually initiating a prosecution on this theory, because Holder isn't being paid to laugh at their referrals.)

And it doesn't matter if she got acquitted in the end, because the cost of defending IS the punishment in the US 'justice' system.

If only there were some independent physical evidence available, some documentary record, to confirm which version of events was correct. Oh, wait, the dog ate it. SIX TIMES.

Yeah, she's in a trap, immunity can't get her out of it, and I have no sympathy, because she built it herself.

[thompson]

And it doesn't matter if she got acquitted in the end, because the cost of defending IS the punishment in the US 'justice' system.

This, I agree with.

[Ugh]

Brett - I am keenly interested in how these six other employees lost emails. The initial reports all stated they were involved in the controversy, but later reports have now dropped that note.

Is it just that they deleted the emails as they managed their inbox capacity limits? Did their hard drives crash as well? Etc.

Lerner should technically feel fine testifying to the truth once given immunity. Query which side of the aisle is more likely to refer her to DOJ for "perjury" even if she tells the truth, however.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Query which side of the aisle is more likely to refer her to DOJ for "perjury" even if she tells the truth, however."

I think that depends rather critically on what the truth happens to be. If she testifies that the targeting was at the direction of the President, and has no documentary evidence preserved to prove this?

Democrats will charge her with perjury.

[thompson]

Did their hard drives crash as well?

Current story is their hard drives crashed:

Earlier this week, Ways and Means Republicans said as many as six IRS employees involved in the scandal also lost email in computer crashes

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/irs-lois-lerner-emails-108044.html?hp=t1

[_cleek_]

ahem.

Cantor's internal polling showed that Brat was favored among such people as:

those who had voted in a Democratic primary 70%-30%
those who had never voted in a primary before 59%-41%
Independents 62%-38%
Democrats 86%-14%; those who say it was their first time voting in a primary 61%-39%
those who say they usually vote in Democratic primaries 84%-16%
those who are voting for [Democrat Jack] Trammell in November 75%-25%;
those who would vote for the generic Democrat 78%-22%
those who approve the job Obama is doing 80%-20%
those who favor Obamacare 88%-12%
those who do not watch Fox News 74%-26%
those who do not agree with the Tea Party 65%-35%
ticket-splitters 63%-37%
those who always or usually vote Democratic in November 83%-17%
moderates 61%-39% and liberals 77%-23%
pro-choice voters 60%-40%

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/cantor-pollster-john-mclaughlin-republican-voters

[byomtov]

They have already admitted to subjecting Tea Party organizations to especially harsh treatment based on partisan criteria,

I don't think this is proven to begin with.

A big part of the whole problem is that we have a rule,or a law, or whatever it is, that couldn't be better designed to generate accusations of unfair treatment.

Lerner has already taken the 5th.

Anyone with two neurons who is threatened with some sort of criminal liability, however remote, will take the 5th in any situation where they are otherwise required to testify. To draw an inference from that is incorrect not only as a matter of law but as a matter of common sense.

You actually know this, Brett.

[wj]

Perhaps the critical word in "taking the 5th" is this: "...on the grounds that it might tend to incriminate me." Not would but might. And when we consider how some people (even here) regard "taking the 5th," it is pretty clear how broadly construed can be the variety of things which might tend to incriminate.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I don't think this is proven to begin with."

Why would we have to prove what they came out and admitted they did?

[bobbyp]

Not would but might.

Heh. A distinction without a difference in winger high crimes and misdemeanors analysis.

However, the claim that taking the 5th was evidence of malice, well that took my breath away.

[Countme-In]

This looks to be a fairly thorough summation of the complicated context of the IRS' actions, including Congressional pressure from both parties in the resulting light (more like, darkness) conferred by the Supreme Court on campaign finance and its always and now exacerbated and murky tax status:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_IRS_controversy

Now, I'm going to walk down the street and have a drink and when the clairvoyant drunk next to me makes some asinine assertion about the simple nature of reality, I'm going to chalk it up to the context of the fact that he's six drinks ahead of me.

[dr ngo]

bobbyp: "However, the claim that taking the 5th was evidence of malice, well that took my breath away."

Ah, little bobbyp, if you were old enough to remember the 1950s (as I am) you would still have plenty of breath, because this kind of charge was routine among Red-baiters of that period. Brett is just keeping alive a grand old tradition of rightwing character assassination, a reminder of the Bad Old Days.

[thompson]

For anybody who is interested, a reasonable list of reasons why conspiracy is unlikely, from someone that has little esteem for the IRS:

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-06-19/an-irs-conspiracy-not-likely-yet

And yeah, taking the 5th means nothing except that you are aware of your rights as an american.

[Brett Bellmore]

"And yeah, taking the 5th means nothing except that you are aware of your rights as an american."

I'll remember that the next time I'm called to testify, and assert my 5th amendment right not to testify for some random reason having nothing to do with the line of testimony being likely to implicate me in crimes. I'll let you know how it works out.

[thompson]

I'll let you know how it works out.

It often doesn't in criminal law, and that it doesn't work out is shameful. The 5th is a crucial right for all citizens.

The attempt to make asserting individual rights equivalent to guilt is not something that should be tolerated in a free society.

[cleek]

The attempt to make asserting individual rights equivalent to guilt is not something that should be tolerated in a free society.

but it's such an essential tool of mind-readers and blame-casters!

won't somebody think of the demagogues ?

[thompson]

won't somebody think of the demagogues ?

oh, plenty of people will, including the demagogues themselves. :)

Just not me.

[wj]

I'll remember that the next time I'm called to testify, and assert my 5th amendment right not to testify for some random reason having nothing to do with the line of testimony being likely to implicate me in crimes.

Wow, Brett, that was quite a leap. From taking the 5th because something might (not would, but might) implicate you. All the way to "some random reason having nothing to do with the line of testimony being likely to implicate me".

Did you think nobody would notice the difference between avoiding incriminating yourself and not answering for any other reason?

[Brett Bellmore]

"Did you think nobody would notice the difference between avoiding incriminating yourself and not answering for any other reason?"

I'm not the one refusing to notice the difference, you are. You have a legal right not to testify where the testimony would incriminate you. This is reasonable, we don't want to live in a country where you can be required to tell the government of any crimes you may have committed.

But this is a right to not testify where doing so would incriminate you, and it logically follows from this that taking the 5th implies that you are guilty of something.

The government may not legally infer this from your refusal to testify. But nobody else is required to refrain from noticing the logical implication of this.

It's rather like, if a police officer illegally breaks into your home, and finds the loot from a local string of burglaries, the government may not use finding this as evidence against you. But nobody else is required it ignore that you have been revealed to be a burglar.

Lerner did not, by taking the 5th, legally incriminate herself. She did incriminate herself for all non-legal purposes, though.

[_cleek_]

Peasants: We have found a witch! (A witch! a witch!)
Burn her burn her!

Peasant 1: We have found a witch, may we burn her?

(cheers)

Vladimir: How do you known she is a witch?

P2: She looks like one!

V: Bring her forward

Woman: I'm not a witch! I'm not a witch!

V: ehh... but you are dressed like one.

W: They dressed me up like this!

All: naah no we didn't... no.

W: And this isn't my nose, it's a false one.
(V lifts up carrot)

V: Well?

P1: Well we did do the nose

V: The nose?

P1: ...And the hat, but she is a witch!
(all: yeah, burn her burn her!)

V: Did you dress her up like this?

P1: No! (no no... no) Yes. (yes yeah) a bit (a bit bit a bit) But she has got a wart!
(P3 points at wart)

V: What makes you think she is a witch?

P2: Well, she turned me into a newt!

V: A newt?!
(P2 pause & look around)

P2: I got better.
(pause)

P3: Burn her anyway! (burn her burn her burn!)
(king walks in)

V: There are ways of telling whether she is a witch.
P1: Are there? Well then tell us! (tell us)

V: Tell me... what do you do with witches?

P3: Burn'em! Burn them up! (burn burn burn)

V: What do you burn apart from witches?

P1: More witches! (P2 nudge P1)
(pause)

P3: Wood!

V: So, why do witches burn?
(long pause)

P2: Cuz they're made of... wood?

V: Gooood.
(crowd congratulates P2)

V: So, how do we tell if she is made of wood?

P1: Build a bridge out of her!

V: Ahh, but can you not also make bridges out of stone?

P1: Oh yeah...

V: Does wood sink in water?

P1: No

P3: No. It floats!

P1: Let's throw her into the bog! (yeah yeah ya!)

V: What also floats in water?

P1: Bread

P3: Apples

P2: Very small rocks
(V looks annoyed)

P1: Cider

P3: Grape gravy

P1: Cherries

P3: Mud

King: A Duck!
(all look and stare at king)

V: Exactly! So, logically...

P1(thinking): If she ways the same as a duck... she's made of wood!

V: And therefore,
(pause & think)

P3: A witch! (P1: a witch)(P2: a witch)(all: a witch!)

[wj]

Prosecution: Where were you Tuesday night?
Witness: I was patronizing a prostitute. [Which is a misdemeanor in this jusisdiction. Not to mention cause to get him fired, he being a clergyman.]
Prosecution: So you have no alibi for the murder which occurred across town?
Witness: I guess not.

Or we can substitute any other minor (but illegal) action.

Prosecution hasn't proved the Witness had anything to do with the murder. But the witnesses testimony has tended to incriminate him for a crime, albeit not that one. So if he took the 5th instead of testifying, Brett gets to say he is obviously guilty of the murder. Because, after all, he refused to testify.

Impressive.

[Countme-In]

"Lerner did not, by taking the 5th, legally incriminate herself. She did incriminate herself for all non-legal purposes, though."

Besides sounding vaguely naughty, I see you've read your Kafka Cliffs Notes.

[Julian]

Remember when everyone here was correctly observing that Cliven Bundy is a criminal, and Brett said you can't assume a criminal is in the wrong because the government stacks the deck with its terrible, horrible, no good, very bad power to define crimes?

[russell]

Here is the text of the Fifth Amendment, in it's entirety:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

Note my bold.

The 5th does not require that you be guilty of anything, nor does it require the testimony you decline to give to be incriminating.

In any criminal proceeding, you have a right to not testify against yourself.

Full stop.

Any inference anyone draws from that is the product of their own imagination.

Honi soit qui mal y pense.

[Brett Bellmore]

I didn't say that Lerner is obviously guilty of a particular crime. (Aside from the little matter of sending legally restricted taxpayer information over to the FBI, of course.) What I said was that we know that she's a criminal, because she took the fifth, and in order for testimony to "incriminate" you, you have to be guilty of something.

And this does tell us something about how far we should trust her explanation of why emails got destroyed after she was on notice somebody would want to see them.

Bottom line here? If you reasoned about Republicans the way you're reasoning about Democrats, you'd assume Nixon's 18 1/2 minutes were a rant about how the local pizza delivery guy kept putting anchovies on his pizzas.

[_cleek_]

What I said was that we know that she's a criminal, because she took the fifth

note to defense attorneys: don't let this guy serve on your jury.

[russell]

we know that she's a criminal, because she took the fifth, and in order for testimony to "incriminate" you, you have to be guilty of something.

No, we don't know that. And no, in order for a statement to be potentially incriminating, you need not actually be guilty of anything.

“a witness may have a reasonable fear of prosecution and yet be innocent of any wrongdoing. The [Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination] serves to protect the innocent who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances.”

Said the SCOTUS in Ohio v Reiner.

If you think something you say *may expose you to criminal prosecution*, you can invoke the 5th Amendment.

Actual guilt or innocence is another question.

I invite the actual attorneys on the board to weigh in.

[Ugh]

Brett: And this does tell us something about how far we should trust her explanation of why emails got destroyed after she was on notice somebody would want to see them.

The TIGTA report states that she didn't know about the targeting of TEA party groups until after her hard drive crashed. The TIGTA report could be wrong, of course.

[Brett Bellmore]

The same TIGTA report which was completed without bothering to contact any of the groups being targeted? A whitewash.

[dr ngo]

Besides all the other reasons for not engaging with Brett, we now have another one: his complete contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law. So much for "conservatism."

[russell]

Brett often has insightful and interesting things to say.

Brett also often fixates on whatever the Breitbart media meme of the day is, and will tenaciously and mind-numbingly argue points of no value whatsoever, until it's demonstrated that he's factually wrong, at which point he'll change the subject.

SSDD

[Countme-In]

Do we mean to conclude that we've been lectured lo these many years about the literal meaning of the unchanging, sacrosanct Constitution and all its Amendments, and all of its Amendments' commas, and its commas' commas, by a person who has so egregiously allowed the meaning the Fifth Amendment to escape him.

And we have expended so many hours and days of our precious lives and bandwidth humoring this, this .. is shibboleth the right word?

I feel like Miss Havisham in Dickens' Great Expectations when she realizes, finally, that she has wasted the decades maintaining an illusion in aspic .. the rotting cake, the wedding table shrouded in cobwebs, the virginal bridal gown now brittle and flammable, the withered bouquet, now colorless and the scent gone.

The flames, the flames!

And what of the Second Amendment?

Has it and its commas been misconstrued as well?

Estella, bring me my gun.

Estella?

[Countme-In]

By my faith and freedom, is Brett missing a conference?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/obama-urinal-faith-and-freedom-conference

[Ugh]

Brett: The same TIGTA report which was completed without bothering to contact any of the groups being targeted? A whitewash.

A whitewash by the Bush appointed IG? For conduct that all (or nearly all) took place under the Bush appointed IRS commissioner? I suppose.

[russell]

By my faith and freedom, is Brett missing a conference?

LOL.

My old man once put a Bush/Cheney election sticker in a urinal, took a picture of it, and sent it to his (R) sister, just to annoy her.

It worked.

I miss my old man, but I'm not sorry he shuffled off his mortal coil before the full post-9/11 pants-crapping clusterFUBAR kicked in.

I'm not sure there would have been enough urinals.

[byomtov]

But this is a right to not testify where doing so would incriminate you, and it logically follows from this that taking the 5th implies that you are guilty of something.

Nonsense. Double-nonsense. Another one for the Bellmore Hall of Shameful Comments.

What it implies is that you have a reasonable fear of being caught in the crosshairs of some ambitious prosecutor or other powerful figure who is eager to twist anything you say into evidence against you. There is no shortage of such people.

Anyone caught up in a situation like Lerner's will be advised by any competent lawyer to take the Fifth regardless of guilt or innocence, because nothing can be gained by testifying.

Do you honestly believe, "If you're innocent you have nothing to fear?"

[byomtov]

The same TIGTA report which was completed without bothering to contact any of the groups being targeted? A whitewash.

How exactly does a group know if it is "being targeted" because there are reasonable grounds for suspicion that they are breaking the law (which, you seem to overlook, they probably were) or for political reasons?

[Brett Bellmore]

How exactly does the IG determine this, while never talking to the putatively "targeted" groups, only checking out the IRS's side of the story?

Are you saying that an official investigation in to alleged abusive behavior by a government agency should involve only talking to that agency, and not to anybody who claimed to have been abused?

[Nombrilisme Vide]

Hmm, lemme see... The TP groups didn't want extra IRS attention focused on their financial practices. Obviously, the government cannot legally infer they're guilty of tax fraud from their desire to avoid above-average scrutiny of their taxes. But nobody else is required to refrain from noticing the logical implication of this... right, Brett?

[bobbyp]

....is shibboleth the right word?

Darned good question. Might I suggest "totem"? Not quite sure about that one either.

[_cleek_]

an official investigation in to alleged abusive behavior

that's not what the investigation was investigating.

FTFR:

The overall objective of this audit was to determine whether allegations were founded that the IRS: 1) targeted specific groups applying for tax-exempt status, 2) delayed processing of targeted groups’ applications, and 3) requested unnecessary information from targeted groups.

there is nothing about "abusive behavior".

once again, you're starting from your conclusion and trying to wedge facts into it.

[bobbyp]

NV,

Well, if I recall correctly, those groups were asked initially to provide more documentation of their claimed tax-exempt status. That's what started the whole furor.

Typically, they claimed they just innocently got together once and a while to pass out copies of the Constitution to an eager public.

If they had invoked the 5th, that would have just proved their guilt (of something, we don't know what), so they just lied instead.

[Brett Bellmore]

My God, you are. You are actually going to claim that the Inspector General, investigating whether an agency engaged in inappropriate actions with regards to somebody, doesn't need to talk to that somebody.

[_cleek_]

the issue at hand was not "abusive behavior", it was the criteria used to filter groups, and how those groups were subsequently moved through the system. the groups themselves had zero to do with the filter and zero to do with how they were processed within the IRS, so what is gained by asking them?

[Tony P.]

So, Brett: you want government investigators to "talk to" people who claim to have been unfairly investigated by the government. That's cool. It might even be one of the "insightful and interesting" things that Russell credits you for "often" saying.

But it seems to me that "talk to" and "investigate" may overlap a bit. I recognize that by "talk to" you really mean "listen to", of course. A government investigator passively listening to your complaint may seem like a welcome prospect. But if your complaint is already public information, passive listening would be pointless. So the "talk" might involve questions back at you, from the investigator. And then you'd caterwaul about being interrogated.

"Social welfare organizations" claiming tax-exempt status for their political activities are the Cliven Bundys of 501c, and I wonder how much interrogation they would have really wanted.

--TP

[Brett Bellmore]

"FTFR:
The overall objective of this audit was to determine whether allegations were founded that the IRS: 1) targeted specific groups applying for tax-exempt status, 2) delayed processing of targeted groups’ applications, and 3) requested unnecessary information from targeted groups.

there is nothing about "abusive behavior"."

Cleek, I've got to thank you, And Tony, too. I first came here because I was looking for a good argument, and for that you need somebody who disagrees with you. And that's why I've stuck around, through the insults and outright homicidal threats.

But something's been bothering me more and more about this site, and I was having trouble identifying it, until the last couple days exchanges. Now I understand what it is.

To get a good argument, you need to associate with people who disagree with you about something. But it takes more than that. They need to share some fundamentals, too. Otherwise, you're speaking English, and they're speaking Urdu. (Yes, that's a metaphor.)

You can't get a good argument from a madman, from somebody who can cite a definition of abusive conduct, and ask where the abuse is. You can't get a good argument from somebody who thinks you investigate an alleged crime by interviewing the alleged criminal, and utterly ignoring anything the supposed victims have to say. You can't have a good argument with somebody who thinks "The dog ate my homework, six days running. Doesn't everybody do their homework on cold-cuts?" is a reasonable excuse.

And so I'm leaving. Perhaps we'll meet again. Hopefully not on opposite sides of a civil war, or at a death camp run by the Count.

Ta!

[wj]

And that's why I've stuck around, through the insults and outright homicidal threats.

I've seen insults fly around occasionally. From both sides. But "homocidal threats"? Here? I must have been persistantly asleep to have missed those....

[liberal japonicus]

I know it's hard to run in those clown shoes, but do not let the screen door hit you on the ass when you leave, Brett.

[bobbyp]

TonyP writes: "But if your complaint is already public information."

Brett whines and counters: "....and utterly ignoring anything the supposed victims have to say."

You see, Brett, the victims had already had their say. At great length. Their complaints were in out there. Daryl Issa was all over the case!

So, wouldn't you think the next step is to, you know, investigate the allegations?

That's what the IG did, right?

I think you need to take a fifth.

[bobbyp]

Hopefully not on opposite sides of a civil war...

As you alluded to in a previous exchange, that would only happen if you missed your flight.

[Countme-In]

Brett?

I say, I've made your favorite recipe tonight, tea-brined chicken breasts, which as you claimed in a completely substantive and accurate comment some time ago is simply scrumptious ....

.... Brett? Are you there?

What do you mean ... he got mad and quit?

I don't believe it.

What kind of a death camp am I running here, where the inmates can just announce that they've had enough and march, I say, fairly skip right out the front gate?

And before cocktails and dinner are served?

The deuce of it is, now I've got to find a substitute teacher for tomorrow's atlatl-carving seminar by 9:00 am, which we instituted as kind of a replacement therapy for the those addicted to loading thousands of pounds of fertilizer into rental trucks and blowing up Federal employee children in day care centers while their parents beavered away upstairs tyrannizing the population.

This is most disrupting. And we were going to have games after dinner, wherein the inmates get to flog the liberal guards while "Red Dawn" is screened throughout the night.

Perhaps, I need to call in the Cheneys to tighten things up a bit in this sorry excuse for a Death Camp, not to be confused with Death Panels, which seems yet another layer of expensive, duplicative Death Bureaucracy.

I knew we should have gone for a for-profit model and cut bobbyp's wages to transfer the booty into shareholder hands.

First thing we do is get rid of the banner over the gate proclaiming "Sarcasm Shall Set You Free", which in this case, has been taken much too literally.

I mean, we paid your AMTRAK fare here, Brett. Why was that so threatening, despite the quality of the tucker, which I'm told has improved, especially since they have instituted the writers-in-residence program in which 25 individual poets/writers may ride the rails for a full year with writing accommodations and the promise that no German Shepherds shall greet them at the end of the journey to herd them into dental facilities.

The tyranny of it would be mind-boggling, given the subsidies, if there was any tyranny, though there is no shortage of minds to boggle over small beer in this great of country of ours.

I blame myself, of course, for this unfortunate escape and self-exiling.

It happened on my watch and I had directed the Camp's watchtower spotlights to the tap-dancing by gunfire pageant under rehearsal and scheduled to debut this weekend, in which the inmates hurl off-label fruit and cabbages at Kenyan tax collectors in loin clothes serving aperitifs to Neo-Cons and violent gun lobbyists while the band plays Dixie.

Come back, Shane.

Do.

[Countme-In]

This brings to mind the unfortunate departure of Moe Lane, who left in a second and a huff, feelings severely bruised.

Have the Death Camp's kept track of their escapes?

Perhaps we need an alumni program of some kind to track escapes and solicit donations for the Camp upkeep, especially the maintenance of the solar-powered electrical boundary fence and the politically correct slavery had its upsides shrine in the inmate walkabout.

The last Lane was spotted, he was ignoring Dodge Ram 4 by 4 loads of unemployed yahoos on public assistance, bristling with expensive military weaponry and home-made badges and epaulettes speeding past him to kill government employees and harass citizens on their weekly grocery shopping excursions, while typing outraged missives into Redstate servers about Democratic Congressman slapping Brietbartian scum for knocking the former's specs off their nose with the lenses of their videocams.

[Marty]

The new OBWI

I like Obama but I think we should stay out of Iraq

I like Obama more, I think we should stay out of Iraq, but its Bushes fault

I don't always like Obama, but I do mst of the time, I think we should stay out of Iraq, and forget about the IRS scandal.

I don't think we should be in Iraq, what scandal, no drones.

What a great discussion.

what russell said.

[Hartmut]

It's not as if there were not enough true scandals but those for the most part will not be touched by either side of the 'serious' people. If we did we would have to hang all presidents not yet deceased plus a few hundred congresscritters and had to put most of the remaining ones behind bars for extended periods of time.

[russell]

hey Marty, we have a new open thread. the floor is open.

[cleek]

oh noes. i've broken the poor lad.

[thompson]

hang all presidents not yet deceased plus a few hundred congresscritters and had to put most of the remaining ones behind bars for extended periods of time.

Beyond not being a proponent of capital punishment, I don't really see the problem. :)

A good response as to the delay between Feb and now regarding Lerner's HDD crash:

Koskinen replied that the reason for the time lapse between February (when e-mail patterns exposed a lapse in certain years that led the IRS to the discovery of Ms. Lerner’s computer crash) and now (when the IRS informed the committee of the hard-drive crash of not only Ms. Lerner but of several others in the case) was because of the danger of dribbling out information a little bit at a time.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2014/0620/IRS-e-mails-In-contentious-House-hearing-the-battle-is-for-credibility-video

It's a valid response, and honestly one I hadn't thought of.

I'm disappointed the WH is unwilling to appoint a special prosecutor. I don't buy the theories about a conspiracy stretching to the WH, or even broadly within the IRS, but I think the IRS's credibility has been damaged. Perhaps wrongfully, but damaged nonetheless.

www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/06/20/231027/wh-rejects-independent-prosecutor.html

I think a prosecutor could do a lot to repair that credibility.

And Brett, if you reconsider, I'd formulate your hypothetical a little differently. Rather than:

It's rather like, if a police officer illegally breaks into your home, and finds the loot from a local string of burglaries, the government may not use finding this as evidence against you. But nobody else is required it ignore that you have been revealed to be a burglar.

I would say it's more like:

Faced with a string of unsolved burglaries, the police ask every homeowner in a town to voluntarily allow them to search their homes for the loot. Someone refuses to let the police search their home, and everybody assumes they are the burglar.

[Hartmut]

Beyond not being a proponent of capital punishment, I don't really see the problem. :)

I am against CP too in the real world but I have some cruel and unusual fantasies usually based on traditional 'mirror punishments' (punishments mirroring the crime, e.g. burning arsonists at the stake). Let's start with the torture memo writers and the poison gas sellers..
In the case of public officials the first thing would of course be the cutting out of the tongue since public lying is the most common misdeed.
;-)

[Tony P.]

I'm disappointed the WH is unwilling to appoint a special prosecutor.

Formally, it's DOJ that appoints special prosecutors, I think. As a practical matter, of course, it is unlikely the AG would refuse to appoint one if POTUS asked nicely.

I must admit that my google-fu has proved inadequate to nail down the current statutory authority of the AG to appoint a special prosecutor or the limits on such an appointee's scope.

FWIW, my own suggestion to Eric Holder would be to appoint a special prosecutor empowered to investigate EVERYBODY associated with the IRS "scandal":
o Lois Lerner and the 82 other IRS employees
o The "social welfare groups" complaining about their tax exemptions
o The Treasury and the White House
o Darryl Issa and company
Let the special prosecutor follow the truth wherever it leads, and if it leads to a blue dress with Issa's DNA on the inside, well, we sort of have precedent for that.

--TP

[wj]

But if a Special Prosecutor gets appointed for this contremps, someone is sure to ask why one hasn't been appointed to look into the far more serious crime (if it is shown to have happened) of the use of torture in the previous administration. Awkward!

[dr ngo]

Why no special prosecutor for Bush administration offenses (if any)? Simple.

Because: BENGHAZI!!

Of course.

(Readers of Slacktivist may supplement this mantra with the new all-purpose conclusion: Thus, Calvinism. Non-readers should start reading. Seriously.)

[Donald Johnson]

"It's not as if there were not enough true scandals but those for the most part will not be touched by either side of the 'serious' people."

Yep.

[Ugh]

I prefer, "Thus, Calvinball."

[russell]

I would say it's more like:

I would say that it's not completely clear that a burglary happened.

The IRS was tasked - or perhaps tasked itself - with investigating groups who were using non-profit status as cover for incorrectly, and illegally, engaging in certain forms of political activity.

As part of that effort, they focused their investigation on groups whose names indicated some obvious political affiliation.

Not just right-wing, but left-wing as well. And not the same numbers of each, but that may simply reflect a disproportion in the numbers of groups with names reflecting some obvious political affiliation.

That may have been politically inastute, but other than that it was a *completely legitimate* thing for them to do. It's their job.

Lerner, specifically, also released information to the FBI. Which may have been illegal, as cleek notes we don't know whether the FBI asked for the information. We don't know what, if any, Lerner's specific political motivations were.

There are a lot of emails that have gone missing, and 6 hard drives containing information of interest crashed and the materials are not recoverable. That is, IMO, at a minimum highly suspicious, but it's also something that might simply be down to crap IT practices at the IRS.

Malfeasance is always a possibility, but in large organizations it's never wise to rule out simple step-on-a-rake stupidity and incompetence.

And, of course, we have Lerner taking the fifth.

On the other side, we have some number of investigations stating that there was no criminal behavior.

So, In My Very Humble Opinion and FWIW, which is not a lot, there are a number of damning pieces of evidence that deserve investigation and explanation. It's possible that there are perfectly innocent explanations for why all of that email went astray, and all of those hard drives conveniently crashed, and Lerner plead the fifth, but as a whole it's pretty smelly.

But what's not on the table at the moment is proof that there was a conspiracy to specifically target conservative groups for harassment.

The other piece of this is that Issa has seized upon this particular issue and is determined to make as much hay of it as he can.

IMO that is actually *harmful* to the cause of folks who think conservative groups have been singled out, because Issa is a transparent opportunist and ass-clown, and any statement that comes out of his mouth, however true it might actually be, loses about half of its credibility simply by virtue of having been uttered by him.

If you're a conservative group who thinks it has been ill-served by the IRS, Issa is not your friend.

Long story short, IMO everybody should take a freaking pill and let the investigation continue. Which it will.

[thompson]

cutting out of the tongue

CNN would get quieter.

I would say that it's not completely clear that a burglary happened.

Yeah, maybe the better hypo would be the police want to look in houses to see if there is any ill-gotten loot, or something the might look like ill-gotten loot.

My point was more that Lerner taking the 5th told us very little beyond that she didn't want congress rifling through her life.

Which is reasonable, IMHO.

however true it might actually be, loses about half of its credibility simply by virtue of having been uttered by him.

Yeah. But I think even though he is unreliable, there is enough FUD out there (and some of the facts are genuinely suspicious), there is actually lasting damage to the credibility of the IRS. IMO, not a good thing.

Putting on my cynical hat for a moment, I think that's why there is no prosecutor (and thanks, Tony, for the clarification. I believe you are correct about that). If a prosecutor found something, it would look bad, and it may end up getting some traction as a political tool during midterms or in 2016.

If Issa finds something, beyond people who hate the administration already, nobody is going to care. Because it is a witchhunt, and even if Issa finds witch, well, the fact it is a plainly partisan witchhunt is going to leave a bad taste in the mouth of any independent that might be swayed otherwise.

It also feeds into a narrative of R's in congress not legislating, just politicking. (A narrat0ive which seems pretty legitimate at the moment.

But that's my cynical hat. Maybe the AG is just standing on principle.

[Hartmut]

Even if a special prosecutor got appointed, (s)he would become a political target very soon too, starting with 'how can anyone appointed by the administration be trusted to investigate misdeeds by the same or on its behalf?'.

[Tony P.]

...let the investigation continue.

Until when? An investigation can end by:
o Finding a smoking gun
o Concluding there is no smoking gun
o Boring everybody to death
o Becoming moot
There may be other ways I can't think of right now.

Of the above, the LEAST likely way is the second: can we really imagine that any number of recovered emails, or sworn testimony, or any other evidence, would ever result in Issa or Ryan, or even Boehner or McConnell, declaring that the investigation is over because the smoking gun turned out to be a water pistol? They're much more likely to keep saying: "The depth of the conspiracy is demonstrated by the fact that we have not found the smoking gun YET."

Let "the investigation" continue, all right, but let's not pretend the "investigators" are willing to reach any conclusion short of "Obama did it".

Just for curiosity, has anybody claimed that the IRS "targeted" previously-existing "social welfare groups" with already-established 501c status, or is the whole thing entirely about applications for that status?

--TP

[Brett Bellmore]

Back for one moment, to deliver... (Drum roll, please.)

The smoking gun.

Have fun explaining this away, I'm sure you will.

[_cleek_]

yeah i thought you'd be back.

All of that, and the IRS couldn’t afford an email archiving service? Not only that, it had to recycle its backup tapes to save money? Ridiculous.

the IRS being able to afford it isn't relevant. the IRS rules at the time apparently said they were to keep backups for 6 months. and that's what they did. you can go read those rules on line.

so now you have to prove that the rules were written to facilitate Lois Lerner's Big Email Deletion Caper. go for it.

as for "personal files" - mind-reading (based on a single adjective!) from John Hinderaker is evidence of nothing except his own inability to read minds. but, "personal" seems like a perfectly reasonable thing for a non-savvy user to call files that reside locally on her PC, as opposed to stuff that resides on a network or is managed by Sharepoint, or whatever.

[russell]

Yay, Hindrocket!!

But it wouldn’t hurt for a House committee to lay a subpoena on Sonasoft to learn more about the IRS’s dealings with that company and make certain that it doesn’t still have any IRS records.

I agree. Get the records, and if there's a "there" there, we'll all get to see it.

And in the meantime, the rest of us will all get on with our lives.

[Countme-In]

The movie "Shane" would have been ruined if he had actually come back.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

Subpoena Hindrocket, because he OBVIOUSLY knows more about the IRS scandal than the public information.

And while he's under oath, ask him about "A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, he can't get anyone to notice. He is like a great painter or musician who is ahead of his time, and who unveils one masterpiece after another to a reception that, when not bored, is hostile."

..just to establish his judgment and credibility, y'know.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

Count: The movie "Shane" would have been ruined if he had actually come back.

Very true, but did Shane flounce? I think that makes a difference.

[liberal japonicus]

Sorry, but when I think of Brett, it's not Alan Ladd that comes to mind, it is Alan Hale jr. A 3 hour cruise, a 3 hour cruise...

[russell]

the hindrocket piece puts me in mind of a logical fallacy that may, as of yet, not have a name.

something can make sense - can be internally logically consistent, can be a plausible inference from known facts - and yet not be true. saying that it must be true, because it "makes sense", doesn't make it true.

for any given situation, there are often hundreds of explanations that "make sense". they aren't all true.

none of them, in fact, may be true. sometimes reality turns out to be somewhat absurd.

crime(s) may have been committed, and short of crimes plain old malfeasance may have occurred.

there is enough weird stuff on the record to make an investigation worthwhile.

but proof is not yet, remotely, on the table.