OK. I’m trying to understand this.
The Prez (a constitutional “scholar”) explains to O’Reilly (during the Superbowl…when no one is interested in any more of the guy’s baloney …or lies) that there”isn’t even a smidgen of evidence of corruption over at IRS.” This is odd wording from a Constitutional “expert” …particularly when the same guy is the “smartest PERSON in the world.” That was his supporters’ claim, wasn’t it? You remember. Back during the days of styrofoam Greek Temples and various ersatz props.
There is another “S” word usually associated with “evidence.” It isn’t smidgen, but “scintilla.” It’s a funny sounding word. Makes it easy to remember. That’s a rare quality in law school. The word means “really small.” Which makes me wonder all the more why a “professor” who taught constitutional law (to undergraduates, not law students…which is supposed to be more fun…”professors” can date the co-ed/undergrads, but I’m getting off point, particularly since that didn’t seem to have ever happened with the ‘professor” in question…unless there was a “composite/undergrad/co-ed” who has remained unidentified…) would not say “scintilla of evidence?”
There are many mysteries surrounding our Prez. For instance, his academic records, his grandfather’s military record, his non-existent girlfriends, his personal history, just how much “choom” he consumed in school, does that practice continue in the Oval Office (there have been some strange goings-on in that rounded off room), how much exactly have his family vacations cost the rest of us, what are his golf scores, is he actually improving his game with all the playing he barely fits in with his other duties, has the improvement in his golf game warranted the expense of all those greens fees we pay for him?
Mystery enhances a guy’s reputation sometimes. But the mysteries surrounding your Prez are becoming a bit mundane and prosaic. They have ceased to enhance his persona. In fact, they have begun to tarnish. Even some of his most ardent admirers and Kool-Aid consumers are questioning things. Particularly in congress where it is dawning on the die-hard dummies his wagon is the wrong one to “hitch onto.” He is no longer “ascending” towards the stars. Running with lemmings seems the better analogy as November approaches.
One really big mystery is why does one of the IRS chiefs need to plead the Fifth Amendment in front of Congress, presumably to avoid self incrimination, if there is …truthfully…”not even a smidgen of evidence of corruption” among the underlings of Lois Lerner?
If you like your smidgen, you can keep your smidgen, Mr. Constitutional Expert. But some of us are wondering. Is this another “If you like it, you can keep it” moment?