The Lerner Files: “smidgens upon smidgens” of corruption
posted at 12:31 pm on July 13, 2014 by Jazz Shaw
Do you remember way back in February when the President said that not only was there not massive corruption in the IRS scandal, but not even a smidgen of corruption? Ah… good times, my friends. This weekend I highly recommend that you check out a piece by Ed Rogers, writing at the Washington Post, with the amusing title, More IRS smidgens show up. ‘Perfect.’
Anyone paying attention to the Internal Revenue Service scandal has been waiting for the next smidgen to drop. Well, two more hit pretty hard this week. At the president’s next encounter with the media, I will scream collusion if no one asks him for his exact definition of a “smidgen,” and if he thinks he has seen a smidgen of corruption yet. At this point, only the most gullible or culpable can continue to claim there is no compelling evidence in this case. Given the delays, lies and stonewalling, there is no viable argument against a special prosecutor.
The two items in question are ones which we’ve already discussed here. One – perhaps the most damning in recent months – was the shocking (meaning, not shocking) revelation that Lerner had previously told her co-workers that, “we need to be cautious about what we say in emails” and wanted to know if instant messaging texts were recorded.
The second was the oh-so-understandable “misunderstanding” about whether or not she had printed out any of her e-mails. And let’s face it… who can be sure what was meant when somebody asks you if you printed something? Did they mean “print” the documents, or print print the documents? It’s all terribly confusing.
We’ll close with another observation from Rogers, who sees that while there may not be one smoking gun out there yet, there certainly seem to be a lot of hot casings on the ground around the crime scene.
Anyway, as long as Lerner stays cool and the Obama Department of Justice has her back, the administration obviously thinks it can run out the clock on this scandal. But these revelations are definitely meaningful smidgens. At what point does a flock of smidgens become irrefutable evidence that deserves an independent examination?
To invoke Instapundit… indeed.
Breaking on Hot Air