I’ve been pondering the recent Harry Reid episode, where Harry Reid discussed the incident from 2012 when he openly lied about Mitt Romney not filing tax returns for 10 years. Harry Reid completely justified his behavior by stating to CNN’s Dana Bash, “”I don’t regret that at all. Romney didn’t win did he?”
How utterly different would the story be if a Republican Senator had lied in this fashion? It is absolutely incredible that Harry Reid wasn’t called out for his shameful lies. What’s more, when Romney did release his taxes shortly thereafter, disproving Harry Reid, no one issued any retraction for the blatant falsehoods.
Reid egregiously lied about the matter on three separate occasions during the 2012 Presidential election season. First, he stated in July of 2012, that Romney “didn’t pay taxes for 10 years. Now do I know that that’s true? Well, I’m not certain, but obviously he can’t release those tax returns. How would it look?”
A few days later, he spoke on the floor of the Senate, saying, “”If a person coming before this body wanted to be a Cabinet officer, he couldn’t be if he had the same refusal Mitt Romney does about tax returns. So the word is out that he has not paid any taxes for 10 years. Let him prove he has paid taxes, because he has not.”
And shortly thereafter, he referred to a unnamed, “extremely credible source” who told Reid that Romney had not paid his taxes for a decade.
This was no offhanded remark. It was a deliberate, intentional, conscious campaign to speak falsely about Mitt Romney in an effort to discredit him.
What could be considered more of an outright criminal activity than a Senator who chose to willfully lie in an attempt to influence a federal election? For someone in his position in the United States Congress, his action is an outrage. Where is the Department of Justice and the Federal Election Commission when you need them!
It’s equally distressing to consider that so many people heard Harry Reid’s accusations and just blindly accepted it. It speaks to their own bias that when they found out they had been lied to, no one was really infuriated that they were openly, blatantly manipulated.
For people to know that Harry Reid is a cheat and a liar, and yet accept his actions because the ends justified the means — what does this say about their integrity? About the credibility of this country? Have we become so cynical that we just accept this level of lying now as “politics as usual?” How can anyone actually be okay with any person, even and especially a US Senator, outright lying in order to manipulate the outcome of an election?
The great Walter Williams released a new video yesterday on the role that profit plays in the free market. Do yourself a favor and take 5 minutes to learn how important profits and losses really are.
“Is profit a dirty word? Would the world be better off without them? Or are profits progressive — the only thing that can move potatoes from Idaho to Manhattan and medicine from America to Africa? Professor and economist Walter Williams explains.”
Roughly 2 weeks ago, I wrote about the IRS sending out corrected tax forms for the 820,000 Obamacare users who received incorrect 1095As in late January. On March 22, it was reported that, “Federal officials said on a Friday press call that about 740,000 corrected forms have been mailed out or can be downloaded from the HealthCare.gov site. About 80,000 corrected forms will be mailed and available online next week”
However, it is apparent that the IRS still has not fixed those users who remain in tax limbo right now, because it was announced that those still affected with incorrect forms are eligible now for an extension until October 15 — but only if they request it.
Those other 740,000 users who didn’t receive their correct forms until the third week of March are not eligible for the extension, but instead have to scramble to get their taxes filed by April 15th. These users were delayed an additional 7 weeks after the government failed to send them their correct 1095As on time (January 31). The 1095A is the proof of insurance for tax forms, and is necessary to calculate whether or not the proper subsidy amount was given in 2014.
The kicker here is that a person must know that he or she needs to request the tax extension. Otherwise, they will still responsible to have their taxes filed for April 15th.
This is nearly as absurd as the scenario that is unfolding with the Obamacare users who are both uninsured and do not make enough income that requires them to file taxes. In order to claim the penalty exemption based on lack of adequate income…they must file a tax return. And what if they don’t know to do so? If they do not claim their exemption, they will be on the hook for the “shared responsibility” payment and “are likely to get hit with an unexpected tax bill later on.”
Obamacare continues to be an onerous, burdensome mess for this country.
Last summer, I wrote an article about how an audit performed by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) on the government transparency site — USASpending.gov — revealed that more than 90% of the information found on the website was inaccurate.
The GAO audited spending data from 2012, the most recent year for which data is available, by comparing government agency records with those found on USASpending.gov. The GAO reported that only 2-7% of the numbers found on the website is ‘fully consistent with agencies’ records.” and that at least “$619 billion from 302 federal programs” was missing. (You can read the GAO report here).
Prior to the release of that report, Congress had recently passed the DATA Act, which was subsequently signed into law. This took USASpending.gov from the Office of Management and Budget and handed it over to the Department of the Treasury.
“For those expecting the Department of the Treasury to fix the problem of transparency on how the government spends its tax dollars, think again. The Department of the Treasury is the parent agency of the IRS — and we all know how transparent the IRS has been with record-keeping.”
It seems that my prediction came true. The Treasury Department’s Bureau of the Fiscal Service was entrusted with overhauling the USASpending.gov website — and the new design, functionality, and transparency was unveiled yesterday. Unfortunately, the ability for citizens to find government spending information is now more difficult.
The Washington Free Beacon did a great analysis of the new design and found gems such as:
”
–Users can no longer search federal spending by keywords, sort contracts by date, or easily find detailed information on awards, which are delivered in bulk.
–Information, such as how much the Pentagon spends on Viagra, used to be available at the click of a button. Locating those same contracts on the new website is virtually impossible, akin to finding a needle in a haystack.
–In its previous form, the website provided easy access to how taxpayer dollars are spent, as it happens. A user now must have the federal grant identification number to see details of a contract.
–The list of agencies does not include smaller government bodies such as the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), but does include the “Barry Goldwater Scholarship and Excellence in Education Foundation.” Results for the profile of “Other Small Agencies” returns zero grants or contracts, with the reply “no data found.””
The article provides a thorough analysis of how the site used to be searchable vs how searchable it is now, complete with graphics. You can read the list of examples here.
Equally distressing is the fact that “search results are also not indexed on Google, making the website’s search engine the only avenue for citizens and reporters to find information within the site. Microsoft Sharepoint operates the new website’s search, and the results are limited.”
This is yet another prime example of what constitutes “transparency” from the “most transparent administration ever”. Fittingly, the Bureau of Fiscal Service did not return requests for comment about the functionality of its new design. Kudos to the Washington Free Beacon for exposing the latest data shroud.
At least they didn’t hire the firm that built healthcare.gov.
The New Republic recently went through an internal overhaul in order to stay relevant, and the recent drivel that was written shows that it wasn’t for the better. Last week, there was an article written called, “”Dear Politicians, Stop Calling People ‘Taxpayers'”, in which the author proposes to eliminate the word “taxpayer” from everyday lexicon because it favors those who pay taxes. You can’t make this stuff up.
The article, which was released coincidentally during the same week as the House Republican FY2016 budget, accuses said budget of being “an ideological document meant to advance a particular set of beliefs about how government should function, and toward what end”. Her evidence of such ideology is that, “in the 43-page budget, the word “taxpayer” and its permutations appear 24 times, as often as the word “people.”
Imagine that. How dare a budget — which is a plan that fleshes out income and expenditures over a period of time — should use the word taxpayer, seeing that the main source of revenue for that budget is taxes, which is paid by…wait for it…taxpayers.
She further analyzes this phenomenon by suggesting, “It’s worthwhile to compare these usages, because the terms are, in a sense, rival ideas. While “people” designates the broadest possible public as the subject of a political project, “taxpayer” advances a considerably narrower vision — and that’s why we should eliminate it from political rhetoric and punditry.”
In other words, it is a “narrow” vision to consider a budget at all from the perspective of taxpayer, from which the government derives most of its revenue. Oh, and the government is now a “political project.”
It gets better.
The author goes on to point out that Democrats also use the word “taxpayer” in their budget: “Democrats often refer to “taxpayers,” too. At 150 pages, the White House budget proposal for 2016 uses the term 26 times”. However, it’s different when Democrats use it! Really it is.
Let’s compare the two. With regard to the use of taxpayer in the House Republican budget, the author writes,
“The House budget is full of examples of seemingly straightforward deployments of the term which are, upon closer inspection, clearly furthering a particular ideology. “There are too many scenarios these days in which Washington forgets that its power is derived from the ‘consent of the governed,’” the plan reads in one instance of the term’s use. “It forgets that its financial resources come from hard-working American taxpayers who wake up every day, go to work, actively grow our economy and create real opportunity.” In other words, Americans’ taxes are parallel with taxpayers’ consent, suggesting that expenditures that do not correspond to an individual’s will are some kind of affront.”
And more,
“The report goes on to argue that “food stamps, public housing assistance, and development grants are judged not on whether they achieve improved health and economic outcomes for the recipients or build a stronger community, but on the size of their budgets. It is time these programs focus on core functions and responsibilities, not just on financial resources. In so doing this budget respects hard-working taxpayers who want to ensure their tax dollars are spent wisely.”
Put simply, taxpayers should get what they pay for when it comes to welfare programs, and not be overcharged. But, as the Republican authors of this budget know well, the beneficiaries of welfare programs tend to receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes, because they are in most cases low-income. The “taxpayers” this passage has in mind, therefore, don’t seem to be the recipients of these welfare programs, but rather those who imagine that they personally fund them. By this logic, the public is divided neatly into makers and takers, to borrow the parlance of last election’s Republicans.”
So here we have it. The use of the word “taxpayers” is bad coming from Republicans because the Republican budget takes into consideration those who personally fund government programs with their taxes. Unfortunately for the author, taxpayers don’t “imagine that they personally fund them”, but actually, truly do fund them with the taxes that they pay. This is problematic to the author, because, she writes, “the “taxpayers” this passage has in mind, therefore, don’t seem to be the recipients of these welfare programs”. (Probably not, largely because, “the beneficiaries of welfare programs tend to receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes”.)
Presumably, that is mean. It is mean to consider at all the source of revenue when writing a budget, even though budgets (are supposed to) have finite revenue limits — which, in this case of a federal budget, are the taxes collected by the taxpayer. But it’s worse than mean. It’s ideological. And narrow.
Contrast this with her defense of the Democrat’s use of the word “taxpayer” in their budget plan (she references the White House one). Taxpayer is used
“26 times, predictably invoking it when referring to cuts and reductions in services. The Budget includes initiatives to improve the service we provide to the American public; to leverage the Federal Government’s buying power to bring more value and efficiency to how we use taxpayer dollars…,” President Barack Obama writes in his introductory message. “The Budget includes proposals to consolidate and reorganize Government agencies to make them leaner and more efficient, and it increases the use of evidence and evaluation to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely on programs that work.”
So, because the Democrats talk about the “taxpayer” with regard to, and in reference to, “services” and “Government agencies”, that is good. Because Government is good. And “services” and “Government agencies” surely include everyone.
What’s really interesting is that both budgets have similar language, but one is bad (Republican) and one is good (Democrat). See here:
Republicans wrote, “this budget respects hard-working taxpayers who want to ensure their tax dollars are spent wisely”, while the President wrote, “The Budget includes proposals… to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely on programs that work” (emphasis added).
So, because the President focused his words on describing Government programs (that work), ergo, it must be true and good. And not ideological or narrow. This is reinforced by the author’s assertion further in the article that “public revenue is just that: a pool of public money to be used for the good of the public, not 300 million pools of private money each to be used to serve private individuals’ interests.” The greater good. Everyone. People. So, how dare any budget consider at all those “taxpayers” who fund it it with (taxpayer) revenue!
The final paragraph of this article, however, is the creme de la creme:
“Whereas “taxpayers” is strewn throughout political documents, “people” is associated with populist and revolutionary movements, and not for nothing. Power to the people, the evergreen revolutionary slogan trumpeted by popular fronts around the world, has a ring that power to the taxpayers does not precisely because it demands an inclusive view of public goods. The same could be said about the first line of the U.S. Constitution: “We the Taxpayers” would have been an odd construction for a nation born from a revolt against British taxation. So let’s leave “taxpayer” to the IRS and remove it from everyday speech. With every thoughtless repetition of the word, we’re carrying political water.” (emphasis original).
This is what passes for meaningful discourse these days. “Taxpayer” is now another word of class warfare, because it suggests there is a divide of “makers and takers”. The Left is content with taking our money to fund (endlessly) whatever programs it deems good — and now it is content to take our speech too.
Eric Holder recently announced his plan to move forward with prosecuting “campaign-finance “coordination” between candidates and outside groups.” This is ridiculous.
Holder has the time to do this, but yet he hasn’t even begun to compose a report on the IRS — which everyone now knows is full of very serious breaches of impropriety.
How can he find the time to develop the politically charged concept of coordination (with no real evidence); investigations are based merely on supposition. In contrast, we have actual facts and actions with regard to the IRS fiasco — which was also politically charged — and Holder has done nothing so far.
Even the WSJ recognizes the farce that this “coordination” campaign is, pointing out that “the federal government can subpoena your documents, email, computers and bank records in a political fishing expedition conducted by the FBI.”
And more: “A coordination investigation can be started on almost any pretext. All you need is an allegation that someone talked to someone they should not have. Once the investigation makes it over that low evidentiary hurdle, the feds can comb through every shred of personal and group communications to find illegal contact.”
Why is the same diligence not being applied to the substantiated, documented IRS abuses? Where is the Department of Justice report on this egregious overreach by another federal department?
Unfortunately, we already know the answer.
2015/2016 is shaping up to be a particularly nasty election cycle. You can read the scathing WSJ opinion on the matter of “coordination” here:
Patrick Henry
March 23, 1775
St. John’s Church, Richmond, Virginia
MR. PRESIDENT: No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do, opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely, and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offence, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.
Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves, and the House? Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these war-like preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled, that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask, gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done, to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free² if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending²if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!
They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations; and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable²and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace²but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
The nomination of Loretta Lynch to the position of Attorney General is before you. Although her intelligence, experience, and poise may appear to make her a superb candidate, it is clear now that she would be an extremely poor – even dangerous — choice due to her strong position on civil asset forfeiture.
The need to safeguard civil liberties and individual rights is a priority for all Americans. Do you really want to consider confirming a person who has been exceedingly proud of her record of taking property without due process…of practicing guilty until proven innocent? This is a very serious issue, not to be taken lightly.
Civil asset forfeiture is a particularly egregious abuse of power, allowing the government to seize property and cash if it merely suspects wrongdoing, even with no evidence and no charging of a crime.
Loretta Lynch was particularly lucrative in this regard as the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York. Between 2011 and 2013, the forfeiture operations under her management netted more than $113 million in civil actions. Lynch’s division was among the top in the country for its collections. But this is not something to be proud of.
In one particularly appalling case, Loretta Lynch’s office seized nearly a half-million dollars from two businessman in 2012 and sat on it for more than two years without a court hearing or appearance before a judge. In fact, no crime had been committed. These men were denied due process and deprived of their assets without warning or criminal charges. Lynch suddenly returned the money just weeks ago on January 20, 2015 — on the eve of her confirmation hearings, having found no wrongdoing by the men either.
During Lynch’s confirmation hearing testimony pertaining to civil asset forfeiture, Lynch stated that “civil and criminal forfeiture are very important tools of the Department of Justice as well as our state and local counterparts.” She further argued that forfeiture is “ done pursuant to court order, and I believe the protections are there.” This is, in fact, not true. In the case mentioned above, there was not only no court order, but also no hearing at any time in nearly three years. That is unconscionable. And this is only one of many similar, well-documented, incidents.
The problem of civil asset forfeiture is that the government can confiscate money or property under the mere suspicion of a crime without ever actually charging someone. The person must prove his innocence to reclaim what was seized, which is a burden of time and money and readily seems to go against our staunch American belief of “innocent until proven guilty.” What’s more, besides the obvious threat to civil liberties, those most likely to be victims are poor and minority citizens.
Thankfully, in recent months, individuals and organizations on both sides of the political aisle have come together to demand reform to this unjust practice. Bipartisan legislation has been proposed in Congress; groups ranging from the Heritage Foundation to the American Civil Liberties Union have been increasingly critical of civil asset forfeiture practices. Even Eric Holder has called for changes and the IRS has recently and publicly pledged to reduce its involvement as well.
Loretta Lynch and her record on civil asset forfeiture represents the worst of this “tool for law enforcement”. A vote for her confirmation is a vote you will never be able to walk back. Do you really want to confirm a person who is so deeply committed to civil asset forfeiture at the very same time in America that there is strong bipartisan support for protecting civil liberties and walking back the laws pertaining to this practice? It makes no sense to proceed down this path.
Loretta Lynch may arguably be the most successful forfeiture agent in government today. This is not a positive quality for an Attorney General. The practice is abusive and her tactics even more so. Voting to confirm a person with such an atrocious civil liberties record is certain to cause problems for you down the road when you have to answer for your support. Therefore, on behalf of all Americans, I urge you to vote no for her confirmation.
According to the LA Times, Hillary Clinton has revealed that aides “deleted more than 30,000 emails that she deemed personal.”
In fact, Clinton herself breaks down the email numbers: there were 62,320 total messages. 30,490 of these were provided to the State Department, and 31,830 were private records that were destroyed.
That’s right, she wrote more personal emails than professional ones during her tenure as Secretary of State.
Hillary Clinton served as Secretary of State from March 2009 to February 2013. That’s four years minus one month. 4 years is 1460 days, plus minus 30 days, totaling 1430 days as Secretary of State. If she sent 31,830 private mails, that averages roughly 22.2 personal emails each day, 365 days a year, the entire time she was Secretary of State.
Does your employer tolerate that many personal emails a day?
It’s even worse if you don’t factor in weekends and federal holidays, just strict federal government working hours. The government calculates that federal employees work 2,087 hours a year. For Clinton’s term as Secretary of state, 2087 hours x 4 years is 8348 hours. Subtract a month (174 hours) and you get 8174 hours.
If she was able to delete 31,830 personal emails over her term, she sent 3.89 personal emails an hour, or one about every 15 minutes, racking up 31 personal emails over an 8 hour work day. On taxpayer money. On taxpayer time. Hillary Clinton was paid $186,600 a year as Secretary of State.
At least we now know what she was probably doing during Benghazi.
During oral arguments of the Burwell Obamacare case before the Supreme Court on Wednesday, a possible resolution seemed to rear its ugly head when Chief Justice Roberts questioned U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli over the contested ambiguity of the application of Obamacare subsidies. Verrilli made the case that the “court should defer to the interpretation of the Internal Revenue Service, which said the tax credits apply nationwide.” This reasoning is absolutely the worst possible solution — but of course not entirely unexpected from the federal government.
The idea of “deference” refers “ to “Chevron deference,” “a doctrine mostly unknown beyond the halls of the Capitol and the corridors of the Supreme Court. It refers to a 1984 decision, Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., and it is one of the most widely cited cases in law. Boiled down, it says that when a law is ambiguous, judges should defer to the agency designated to implement it so long as the agency’s decision is reasonable.”
Given the current catastrophic state of the Internal Revenue Service, the courts must run from this idea as quickly as possible. The IRS has proven overwhelmingly in the last few years that no decision it makes is “reasonable” and therefore cannot be trusted as an unbiased, independent agency capable of carrying out a professional opinion on this or virtually any manner. IRS officials engaged in targeting of conservatives, “lost” official emails, mislead Congress and investigators about their existence, and corresponded with agencies such as the FBI, the House Oversight Committee, the DoJ, and the White House in 2509 documents over a multi-year period.
No wonder the federal government requests deference to the IRS to sort out the language and spirit of Obamacare subsidies. It’s like the fox guarding the hen house!
The IRS is no more capable of making such a determination in the first place as the FCC was in implementing net neutrality or the EPA rules changes on limiting carbon dioxide emissions. Agencies have repeatedly exceeded their statutory jurisdiction. SCOTUS would be wise to ignore this suggestion to put the onus back on the IRS to sort out the mess. The IRS has never answered satisfactorily for its repeated scandals, and therefore cannot be considered non-partisan or capable of any prudent judgment, via “deference”, at this time.
