Following the link from this piece at ThinkProgress, this is just priceless:
When the Senate Democratic Policy Committee asked the head of a business organization advocating an overhaul of Social Security to testify at a hearing last week, the members expected him to take the White House line.
They didn't know he would also take the White House editing.
In e-mailing his testimony to the Democratic panel, the organization's chief, Derrick A. Max, inadvertently included editing comments made by an associate commissioner of Social Security on loan to the White House.
Democrats, crying foul, have asked for an investigation. Max has responded that the Social Security official, Andrew G. Biggs, is one of his closest friends and that the changes he made were largely grammatical and technical.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Delightful. Even the dumbest criminals know they should wipe off their fingerprints before they leave the scene of the crime.
In his defense, Max claims that Biggs' assistance was restricted to simply "grammatical and technical" changes. Really?
Most of Biggs' editing is grammatical or technical. At one point, however, he suggests that Max "not use the charts the White House put together" as part of his presentation.
So ... does that suggestion fall under "grammatical" or "technical"? Or "cover your ass"?
No comments:
Post a Comment