“There were some boneheaded decisions made.”

Oh… okay. That explains it.  On to the next question.  As George Will notes, and I suggest, if only the next question had been , “if all the “boneheaded” decisions were directed at one party,  the “boneheadedness” becomes a scandal of directed activity, regardless of its “boneheadedness” or lack of wisdom. Isn’t that correct Mr. President?”

Another question might have been, “If you know they were boneheaded decisions, then you must know who made them. Who made them?”

Using a euphemism to chuckle away an illegal activity directed by party inclinations is hardly an explanation.  Imagine Nixon saying” the Watergate breakin was just a “boneheaded” decision.  They actually fell into the office by mistake, almost.”

Not a “smidgen” of evidence in a yet to be completed investigation, we are told.  But then we have been told countless times that neither the president nor Jay Carney can speak to ongoing investigations such as Benghazi or Fast and Furious. Which is it, exactly?  What is the official policy?

It has been suspected via the content of some of the emails procured, that the IRS “keyhole” dragging of conservative groups was a partisan response to the SCOTUS ruling on Citizens  United v Federal Election Commission.  A penny for the thoughts of Justice Alito, who had to withstand a national and presidentially delivered misrepresentation of the ruling.  (What a time for a Joe Wilson moment.)

Perhaps the time for immunity has come for Lois Lerner.  After all, while her punishment might bring a moment of joy to some, the real goal is to determine what actually happened, by whom, and at whose direction.  The truth matters here.  Getting to it would be the treasure.