Mumpsimus: Merriam-Webster Taunts Trump With Definition Of Obsessional Stubborn Person

Merriam-Webster seems to have found the bizarre controversy over President Donald Trump’s insistence that he was right that Hurricane Dorian was on a path to hit Alabama on September 1st. Trump continues to tweet about being right while the Washington Post is reporting that, despite Trump’s denial, he was the person who altered the hurricane path map with a Sharpie. So Merriam-Webster tweeted the definition of mumpsimus, or “A stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong.”

It appears that the term originated with an illiterate priest who accidentally said “mumpsimus” rather than “sumpsimus.” The stubborn priest refused to be corrected and continued to use the word to mean “we have taken” in Latin.

As if to prove the point, Trump continued to issue tweet after tweet saying that he was right after all. The Weather Service was forced to correct its own forecast information that contradicted Trump and a national security official was pushed forward to support Trump’s account as part of six-days of effort by the White House.

Trump also called in Fox News White House reporter John Roberts to convince him that Trump was right all along. Roberts later wrote a memo to Fox to describe the scene.

It is all . . . well. just too mumpsimus.

170 thoughts on “Mumpsimus: Merriam-Webster Taunts Trump With Definition Of Obsessional Stubborn Person”

  1. Anonymous, there have been an unsightly number of postings from you that don’t belong on the blog. That is obviously the case as they have been removed. Have you been bitten by any wild animals? If I were you I would get myself checked out.

  2. NOAA WARNED FORECASTERS..

    NOT TO CONTRADICT DONALD TRUMP

    Nearly a week before the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration publicly backed President Trump over its own scientists, a top NOAA official warned its staff against contradicting the president.

    In an agencywide directive sent Sept. 1 to National Weather Service personnel, hours after Trump asserted, with no evidence, that Alabama “would most likely be hit (much) harder than anticipated,” staff was told to “only stick with official National Hurricane Center forecasts if questions arise from some national level social media posts which hit the news this afternoon.”

    They were also told not to “provide any opinion,” according to a copy of the email obtained by The Washington Post.

    A NOAA meteorologist who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution said the note, understood internally to be referring to Trump, came after the National Weather Service office in Birmingham contradicted Trump by tweeting Alabama would “NOT see any impacts from the hurricane.”

    The Birmingham office sent the tweet after receiving a flurry of phone calls from concerned residents following Trump’s message.

    The agency sent a similar message warning scientists and meteorologists not to speak out on Sept. 4, after Trump showed a hurricane map from Aug. 29 modified with a hand-drawn, half-circle in black Sharpie around Alabama.

    “This is the first time I’ve felt pressure from above to not say what truly is the forecast,” the meteorologist said. “It’s hard for me to wrap my head around. One of the things we train on is to dispel inaccurate rumors and ultimately that is what was occurring — ultimately what the Alabama office did is provide a forecast with their tweet, that is what they get paid to do.”

    Edited from: “NOAA Staff Warned In Sept 1 Directive Against Contradicting Trump”

    The Washington Post, 9/7/19

    1. More From Above:

      METEOROLOGISTS DECRY POLITICIZATION OF WEATHER

      In 2018, a survey of scientists at 16 federal agencies found a culture of fear and self-censorship in an administration that has sidelined scientific evidence, especially as it related to climate change, in favor of political expediency.

      Keith Seitter, executive director of the American Meteorological Society, said in a statement that “the criticism of the Birmingham forecast office is unwarranted; rather they should have been commended for their quick action based on science in clearly communicating the lack of threat to the citizens of Alabama.”

      Others who weighed in on social media were also scathing in their response to NOAA’s decision to publicly defend Trump.

      “I have never been so embarrassed by NOAA. What they did is just disgusting,” Dan Sobien, president of the National Weather Service’s labor union, wrote on Twitter Friday. “Let me assure you the hard working employees of the NWS had nothing to do with the utterly disgusting and disingenuous tweet sent out by NOAA management tonight.”

      A popular television broadcast meteorologist in Birmingham also came to the defense of his city’s National Weather Service team.

      “The tweet from NWS Birmingham was spot on and accurate,” James Spann tweeted. “If they are coming after them, they might as well come after me. How in the world has it come to this?”

      On Saturday, the National Weather Service leadership seemingly tried to address the outcry in an all-hands letter to its employees to thank them for their hard work during the hurricane. The letter, obtained by The Washington Post, assured employees they were valued.

      Edited from: “NOAA Staff Warned In Sept 1 Directive Against Contradicting Trump”

      The Washington Post, 9/7/19

    2. Hill, the level of corruption this demonstrates would have been unimaginable before the Dear Leader Trump. This is Saddam level fawning BS by a previously technical apolitical federal services who’s work citizens depend on for serious matters.

  3. Paul, you need to read “The Discovery of Global Warming” by Spencer Weart, available online from the American Institute of Physics.

  4. I attended a meeting at my marina regarding the Dorian track several days ago. One day before the Trump episode on the media. A weather guy who happens to have a boat at the marina was there. Someone asked, as we looked at the map of Florida coast, whether the storm might just go west and hit the gulf coast. And the weather meteorologist guy drew a curve on the mapr with a crayon out over Alabama.
    And he said: if it doesn’t hit there and the storm goes north east then the rescue people over on western Florida and Alabama and Mississippi will have to be told to come East and help out.
    Same thing was probably the rap at the White House and why Trump or someone drew that same curve on his map.
    The media has shown its greatest BS on this issue. The topic on the blog here fits in with CNN and NBC.
    Yeah, Trump shouldn’t twit all the time. But this line on the map was a normal thing for someone to do.

    Comments on the blog today are BS too.

  5. “WASHINGTON (AP) — Former top officials of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are assailing the agency for undermining its weather forecasters as it defends President Donald Trump’s statement from days ago that Hurricane Dorian threatened Alabama.

    They say NOAA’s action risks the credibility of the nation’s weather and science agency and may even risk lives.

    Dismay came those who served under Republican and Democratic presidents alike as leaders in meteorology and disaster response sized up a sustained effort by Trump and his aides to justify his warning that Alabama, among other states, was “most likely” to be hit hard by Dorian, contrary to forecasts showing Alabama was clear.

    That effort led NOAA to repudiate a tweet from the National Weather Service the previous weekend assuring Alabamans — accurately — that they had nothing to fear from the hurricane. The weather service is part of NOAA and the tweet came from its Birmingham, Alabama, office.

    “This rewriting history to satisfy an ego diminishes NOAA,” Elbert “Joe” Friday, former Republican-appointed director of the National Weather Service, said on Facebook. He told The Associated Press on Saturday: “We don’t want to get the point where science is determined by politics rather than science and facts. And I’m afraid this is an example where this is beginning to occur.”…”

    1. Anon1 – you can repeat that, but it still does not make it true. NOAA has a history of twisting science to fit its needs.

      It keeps getting caught making up numbers for temperature charts.

      https://realclimatescience.com/2016/12/100-of-us-warming-is-due-to-noaa-data-tampering/

      ps://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/30/hidden-noaa-temperature-data-reveals-that-6-of-the-last-9-months-were-below-normal-in-the-usa-and-noaa-cant-even-get-june-right/

      1. Paul, Climate Change is considered settled science to everyone outside the Republican party. The entire world has moved on from this issue. But the United States is hobbled by Republicans and the Koch Bros Network of Political Donors.

        1. Peter – were you aware that Michael Mann lost a Climate Change case in Canada because he refused to produced the “settled science”?

                1. David Besnon – mumpsimus

                  You’ve got some issues. Like it or not that reporting was correct. The settled science refused to produce the actual proof.

          1. These clowns used to call it global warming until corruption revealed it as a false claim. Now it’s climate change. No —-, Sherlock. A few billion years ago, the earth wasn’t even here. Of course, the climate changes. It always has and it always will. What these parasites are promoting is an ideology: Communism. Collectivism and “free stuff” for everyone…until the bill comes due. ——- idiots. What else does one expect from those who don’t do; but those who are jealous and those who covet. The Constitution actually precludes communism and communists but the Supreme Court (the 2nd legislative branch) suppresses and denies those Articles and Sections.

          2. Paul, get realistic. It’s not like you can debunk Climate Change with a link some rightwing website. It’s not like Nobel-Prize winning physicists overlooked crucial math that every Trumper knows. Does that make any sense??! ‘No’, of course it doesn’t!

      2. Mr. Schulte,
        The recommendation to “read Weart” reminded me of something else I remembered from an exchange some time ago.
        Was it you that was owed all of those citations by Benson, or did he welch on the citations with someone else?

          1. Shouldn’t have brought up Weart, Benson.
            “Read Weart” and your debt to Mr. Schulte were linked together in the past, and now they’re both live issues again.

            1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me twenty-five citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after forty-two weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on.

      3. Paul, putting aside your demonstration of the fact that children and idiots should not be allowed on the internet by themselves, thanks for clarifying your complete acceptance of whatever Trump says even when contradicted by scientists and other experts.

        Now go away please.

        1. Anon1 – meteorology is an art, not a science. I was friends with a grad student taking a grad level meteorology course and they used to take bets on who was closest to getting the weather prediction right for the next day. Note the radio silence on the storm stalling over Bermuda. Did NOAA predict that? If not, they should all go to prison. Felony charges for all of them!!!

          1. I’m sorry Paul, but you’re an idiot. Maybe a nice one, but I don’t need to waste more time talking to someone who’s decided to get his weather from the leader of his cult.

            1. Anon1 – I know you have been dipping into Rules for Radicals again, however I don’t belong to any cults. I do believe the DNC and their followers are a cult and should be designated as such.

              BTW, I get my weather from my Amazon Go.

  6. Funny stuff – see especially last para quoted –

    McConnell vows to protect Kentucky middle school from Trump’s grab for wall funding

    “(CNN)Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he would defend funding for a new middle school in his home state of Kentucky after it was selected as one of the military projects the Trump administration will delay in order to fund border wall construction.

    Secretary of Defense Mark Esper announced on Tuesday the list of projects impacted by the funding move, which would shift a little less than $1.8 billion from projects in 23 states and three US territories. The middle school was slated to receive $62.6 million in February 2020.

    “Senator McConnell recently talked to Secretary Esper regarding the issue and is committed to protecting funding for the Ft. Campbell Middle School project,” a spokesman for McConnell said in a statement….

    The Kentucky Republican voted to support Trump’s national security declaration in March, which allowed the President to use military funding for border wall projects.

    The spokesman for McConnell blamed the delayed military construction projects — a funding decision made by Trump to secure his long-sought-after funding for a border wall — on Democrats….”

    https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/06/politics/mcconnell-middle-school-trump-border-wall/index.html

  7. OT: PSA Announcement

    Do not be confused by the Gen Z “super sonic snowflakes,” compared to the Gen Y “just plain good ole’ snowflakes.”

    The Gen Z “SSS” will request “safe rooms” and “emotional support pets,” all-the-while throwing darts at others with their “gang” from that very same safe space where they’re seeking shelter from all the meanies.

    I have never seen a generational that is so “offended” and “uncomfortable” and yet “mean girl” spirited in my life.

    Add on the “know it all” mentally + activism “superiority,” and it’s just a mess.

    I hope they do mature with age.

    1. Lol.

      The professors today better be careful what they say in class, b/c at least 30-40 % of their students are “recording” them against school policy, while covering their “recording device” on their computer with their Word docs, etc.

      Add on another stress to the job of trying to teach.

      #norespectfromthesnowflakes

  8. JUST IN:

    Anti-Trump CNN Host

    DON LEMON

    Was Just Sued By A Man for Sexual Assault

    August 13, 2019

    CNN’s Don Lemon is reportedly being sued in Suffolk County by a man who claims that Lemon sexually assaulted him last summer at a Sag Harbor bar. Dustin Hice, the plaintiff in the lawsuit, claims that Lemon assaulted him in July 2018 after he offered to buy Lemon a drink at the bar and Lemon declined. According to the lawsuit, which was obtained by Mediaite, Lemon approached Hice later that night “and, after putting his hand down his shorts he ‘vigorously rubbed his genitalia” and “shoved his index and middle fingers into [Hice’s] mustache.’” “Mr. Lemon intensely pushed his fingers against Plaintiff’s face under Plaintiff’s nose, forcing Plaintiff’s head to thrust backward as Defendant repeatedly asked Plaintiff “Do you like p**sy or d*ck?” the lawsuit states. “While saying this, Mr. Lemon continued to shove his fingers into Plaintiff’s face with aggression and hostility.”
    ______________________________________________________

    Don, you sourpuss, you!

  9. BUSTED: CNN Video with Don Lemon and CNN Meterologist discussing Dorian’s trajectory including Alabama

    Trump yet again won against public enemy CNN

    CNN – DORIAN – ALABAMA, ALABAMA, ALABAMA, ALABAMA… – YouTube

  10. Paul has obviously missed the fact that Mueller specifically said he could not exonerate Trump, but would have if that is what he had founf, He also listed 10 instances of obstruction of justice by him which he though would probably be chargeable if he were not a sitting president.

    Paul, maybe you should at least read a complete summary of the report. because whatever news sources you are using are leaving you naked on the JT stage.

    1. We would luuuuv to see Paul naked on this blog. Woohoo!

      You, however, given that you are a liar, not so much

      🖕🏾

            1. Paul, When was the last time you had a beautiful conservative woman, well put together, with coconuts full of delicious milk?

              You flirt you

              1. Lourdes – I did not know I was flirting and if my wife found out, she would kill me. I am just looking for kewl emojis. Thanks for the offer though. 😉

    2. Anon1 – didn’t the DoJ have a different take than Mueller? And it was clear Mueller had not read or written his own report.

    3. Anon1,
      Mueller did say that in response to a number of skillful and leading questions by Rep. Lieu.
      Immediately after a recess that followed, he clarified his response. He walked back his previous statement that he would have indicted Trump for obstruction but for DOJ policy.
      He did not present a conclusion about whether Trump obstructed justice in his report, either. There is nothing in the OSC report that said the “the 10 instances were chargeable”.
      I saw Mueller’s testimony. Both his exchange with Rep. Lieu and his almost immediate retraction of what he said in the exchange were dramatic highlights of his testimony.
      And evidence that Mueller had probably ” lost a step” over the years.

  11. Another Mumpsimus Moment:

    TRUMP SPITEFULLY THREATENS CALIFORNIA..

    OVER DEAL WITH AUTOMAKERS

    The Trump administration put California “on notice” Friday that it plans to use the full weight of federal authority to fight the state’s groundbreaking deal with automakers to rein in air pollution.

    In a letter to California Air Resources Board Chairman Mary Nichols, attorneys for the EPA and Department of Transportation asserted that the state’s deal with Honda, Ford, BMW of North America and Volkswagen appears to be “unlawful and invalid.”

    Separately, Reuters reported that the Justice Department has opened an antitrust investigation into the four car manufacturers over the deal.

    California Gov. Gavin Newsom suggested the moves were more about deterring additional carmakers from joining the agreement, rather than a genuine legal threat.

    An EPA official rejected the accusations that the administration is trying to instill a chilling effect on the automotive industry. The official told McClatchy that, after putting California “on notice” with its letter, the ball would be in the state’s court to determine next steps.

    “It just depends on the reaction California has – the biggest thing we’re doing is finalizing the rule itself to have one national standard going forward,” the official said.

    The federal government’s latest threats intensify what has already become one of the most acrimonious — and increasingly personal — battles between President Trump’s administration and the state.

    Nichols singled out EPA Director Andrew Wheeler directly in a statement condemning the latest administration moves. “The US Department of Justice brings its weight to bear against auto companies in an attempt to frighten them out of voluntarily making cleaner, more efficient cars and trucks than EPA wants,” Nichols said. “Consumers might ask, who is Andy Wheeler protecting?”

    The Obama administration’s standards were agreed to in coordination with California, which was granted special authority to set its own tailpipe targets in the 1970 Clean Air Act. Thirteen other states and the District of Columbia have since followed California’s lead.

    Talks between California and the Trump administration over adjusting the standards fell apart last February.

    Edited from: “Trump Puts California On Notice Over Emissions Deal With Automakers”

    The Sacramento Bee, 9/6/19

    1. MORE FROM ABOVE:

      In addition to weakening the emissions standards, the Trump administration has since signaled it will challenge California’s waiver authority in the Clean Air Act.

      Carmakers fear that will prompt a lengthy legal fight, which will lead to a patchwork of regulatory standards across the country. In June, a coalition of car manufacturers wrote a letter to the White House pleading with them to restart negotiations with California on a compromise. The automakers argued that uncertainty over the rules could create chaos as they begin designing models for the next decade.

      California officials said that after the White House dismissed their plea, several carmakers then approached the state about working out a deal that could result in a higher fuel economy standard, regardless of the White House’s regulatory moves.

      The Trump administration appears to have recently increased their efforts to thwart the California deal — and to halt any efforts to expand it.

      President Donald Trump met with the CEO and chairman of General Motors, Mary Barra, on Thursday, amid rumors that the company could be next to join Newsom’s effort, and EPA officials were at the White House on Friday as the Justice Department announced its inquiry.

      When California announced the deal in July, “Newsom said that others would be joining in a matter of days. Nichols said a matter of weeks,” the EPA official noted. “Days and weeks have gone by.”

      1. Regarding Above:

        It is truly Orwellian that Trump would weaponize the EPA in favor ‘of’ pollution! This story deserves to be bigger than the Alabama forecast. Both instances, however, illustrate how Trump will go to any length to punish those who contradict him.

        1. Trump, desperate because he’s behind in the polls, is trying to drum up support by revisiting old environmental complaints from decades ago. In addition to trying to relax emissions standards, he’s trying to get rid of rules for efficient light  bulbs. When the rules were first enacted, the more-efficient bulbs were way more expensive, not as visually pleasing, and many didn’t like them as well as incandescent bulbs. With improved technology, today’s energy efficient bulbs are overwhelmingly popular. They last 10 or more years, they save energy and provide better light. We’ve grown up now. Bitching about light bulbs is so 1980’s, but Trump’s desperate–maybe he can hook some supporters by tapping into this old issue.

          I would submit the same is true for fuel efficiency and air pollution standards. No longer do you see smokestacks belching black smoke or smell the stench of factories. You don’t need to fill up as often, either. We don’t want to regress, but Trump has been such a flop at everything, and he gets the deplorables stirred up by airing old grievances, he’s going to go for all of the old retro environmental complaints. It’s becoming pathetic.

          1. Yeah, Natasha, Trump is tenacious at undermining environmental regulations. What a cause!

            This could be a passage from Paragraph 1 in Trump’s eventual obituary:

            “Trump is best remembered for his shockingly stupid attacks on environmental laws. Scientists estimate Trump’s efforts set the nation back 20 years in climate preparedness. Academics regard Donald Trump as the most ignorant president ever”.

            1. Hillary will remember Trump as orange man kicking her smug lying azzzzz

              bwahahaha

              bbwwwwahahahahahahahahaha

              bbwwwwahahahahahahahaha

              1. What a ——- idiot. It is so full of corruption it has gone out of its mind. It has lied, cheated, stolen and killed to obtain personal power. It had only one child to appear normal for political purposes. It knows nothing but political lust and avarice. It has never had a job or met a payroll. It buys votes with largesse stolen from taxpayers. It is the very antithesis of the Founders’ concept of temporary service to the country by successful businessmen on hiatus. What a ——- idiot!

              2. Chu, is this your lame “What About?” Because even by “What About?” standards, this is pretty lame. Nothing relevant to anything here. Just an all-purpose “What About?” concerning Hillary.

                Like Trump’s threat against California and the automakers can be simply dismissed with “What About Hillary?”.

                “What About’s?” were always lame, of course. But it’s gotten to the point were they don’t have to make sense on even the dumbest level.
                It could be “What About Harry Truman?”. ..See how dumb that looks..? Yet in the world of “What About’s?” that could suffice. That could be enough to make any Trumper think they won an argument.

    2. Standards that affect the entire country, should be determined by the entire country. Improving pollution is a laudable goal. However, California has not tried to work this out with the governors of the other states. It has decided that it will be the one to drive global auto requirements, as car manufacturers want one standard for all vehicles.

      Cleaning the air is a great idea. Get everyone at the table and stop acting like Napoleon, California.

      https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/07/how-trump-is-targeting-californias-car-pollution-standards/566300/

      “A proposal, expected to be released as soon as this week from the EPA, would revoke permission granted to California in 2012 by the Obama administration that allows the state to establish its own automotive emission regulations.”

      “Simply replacing the 2025 goals with looser new ones couldn’t be enforced nationwide, since California and the states that follow it would maintain standards at the level agreed upon with the Obama administration, forcing automakers to either sell cars with different fuel efficiencies in different parts of the country, or simply acquiesce to California’s stricter rules.

      “The auto industry does not want to build two sets of vehicles for the U.S.,” said Bruce Belzowski, the managing director of Automotive Futures Group, a think tank in Ann Arbor, Michigan.”

      1. Karen, California has had the authority to set it’s own standards since 1970. And if you really live in California, you should be aware of that. Smog, for the record, used to be a serious issue in L.A. For that reason California wanted tougher standards. There is absolutely no logic whatsoever for Trump to be rolling-back vehicle emission standards. It’s just Trump trying to erase the Obama legacy. That’s all it’s about.

  12. Kirstie Alley

    @kirstiealley
    I refuse to be part of the Hollywood a@shats who can’t see that “NOT working with Republicans” is as stupid and NASTY as “REFUSING to do business with gay people”..STOP ACTING above the FRAY ya damn hypocrites…WE are the same species! let’s help each OTHER ya damn yahoos ❤️❤️❤️

    54.2K
    8:39 PM – Sep 6, 2019

    1. It looks like a few tracks are missing on that chart.

      Anon is demonstrating how lost he is that he has to create problems. The news media has made countless attacks on the President and seems to have run out so they are going back to an earlier strategy.

      Newsflash: TRUMP IS PRESIDENT

  13. ALABAMA WEATHER SERVICE CONTRADICTED TRUMP

    THEN RETROACTIVELY NOAA REBUKES ALABAMA

    POLITICAL PRESSURE SUSPECTED

    Released six days after Trump’s first tweet on the matter, the NOAA statement was unsigned, neither from the acting head of the agency nor any particular spokesman. It also came a day after the president’s homeland security and counterterrorism adviser released a statement justifying Trump’s claims of the Alabama threat.

    The NOAA statement Friday makes no reference to the fact that when Trump tweeted that Alabama was at risk, it was not in the National Hurricane Center’s “cone of uncertainty,” which is where forecasters determine the storm is most likely to track. Alabama also had not appeared in the cone in days earlier, and no Hurricane Center text product ever mentioned the state.

    Ten days ago, computer model predictions did present a scenario in which Dorian would strike Florida, enter the Gulf of Mexico and potentially affect Alabama. However, by Aug. 29, when the president was briefed by acting NOAA administrator Neil Jacobs, that scenario had become highly unlikely. By Sunday morning, when Trump tweeted about the Alabama threat, no credible computer model showed any risk to the state.

    The Weather Service’s mission is to protect life and property. By releasing the statement admonishing the agency for an accurate forecast, NOAA may be seen as putting politics before facts. This could undermine forecasters’ ability to carry out their mission to the point where people may come to see its weather forecasts as political and untrustworthy.

    Many meteorologists, recognizing Alabama was at no risk, expressed their ire on Twitter, stating Trump should have instead focused on communicating Dorian’s hazards to the Southeast coast and dispensed with his preoccupation with Alabama.

    James Franklin, the former chief of a prediction unit at the National Hurricane Center, expressed support for the Birmingham Weather Service office that NOAA admonished.

    “I thought Birmingham’s statement Sunday morning that Alabama would see no impacts from Dorian was spot-on and an appropriate response to the President’s misleading tweet that morning,” he wrote in an email. The Hurricane Center’s “wind-speed-probability product serves as guidance to forecasters, and it showed only a very small likelihood of tropical-storm-force winds in the state, and essentially zero chance of hurricane-force winds.”

    He stated: “I am very surprised that NOAA’s statement today seems to not recognize the value its forecasters add every day to NWS products and services.”

    Dan Sobien, president of the NWS Employees Union, stated in a tweet Friday evening that “The hard-working employees of the NWS had nothing to do with the utterly disgusting and disingenuous tweet sent out by NOAA management tonight.”

    Edited from: “NOAA Backs Trump On Alabama Hurricane Forecast, Rebukes Alabama Weather Service For Accurately Contradicting Him”

    The Washington Post, 9/6/19

        1. Peter Hill – the only time I have seen an investigation “exonerate” someone was the Benet family, but after the mother died and they had moved. It was NOT his job to exonerate him.

Leave a Reply