How many smidgens in a lie?
President Obama has declared that the IRS, the administration's most powerful agent, has “not a smidgen of corruption.” This, despite one IRS official using her Fifth Amendment protection rather than testifying before Congress. That surely is more than a smidgen of evidence of corruption.
And it appears there will be no criminal prosecutions in the IRS abuse-of-power investigation, although we're told the investigation is ongoing.
The statement by Obama that there is “not a smidgen” is just the next lie permitted to be perpetrated by our missing media. Remember the red line, the keep your doctor/keep your insurance, the stupid police, the congressional adjournment, the $2,500 savings in insurance, the shovel-ready jobs, the penalty is not a tax, the Benghazi video, the handoff of weapons to the cartels, the most open administration ever and his sincere commitment to get to the bottom of anything.
Just how many “smidgens” will it take before a modern-day Woodward or Bernstein finally stands up to this Chicago-Democrat administration? I'm embarrassed for the journalism profession.
We have to have an honest and sincere government. Inquisitive and brave journalistic oversight is our assurance against political corruption and loss of liberties. The smidgens are adding up so quickly.
It's hard to believe that we've been so transformed. But wait, he just said he never said we'd be transformed ... but he did. We all heard him.
Daytona Beach Shores, Fla.
The writer is a former Harrison resident.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.