"May"-day at LittleGreenFootballs.com                                                 
A 3/15 Charles Johnson LittleGreenFootballs.com entry, "Fake Scandal of the Month: Hillary Clinton's private email account," drew seriously on a Newsweek essay by Kurt Eichenwald: 

"Here is what the Times article says about that," Eichenwald wrote. "Clinton 'may have violated federal requirements that officials’ correspondence be retained as part of the agency’s record.' The article goes on to say that: 'Regulations from the National Archives and Records Administration at the time required that any emails sent or received from personal accounts be preserved as part of the agency's records. But Mrs.Clinton and her aides failed to do so.
  
"Let’s dismantle this one part at a time. There is a term in journalism for the word may. It’s called a weasel word, which helps readers gloss over what the story is really saying: That the Times doesn’t know if the regulations were violated, but it sure sounds good to suggest that it could have been. (Eichenwald, "Why Hillary's 'emailgate' is a fake scandal" Newsweek 3/10)

As firmly defined, then, by Eichenwald's damning judgement (one loudly and enthusiastically seconded by Charles Johnson and LittleGreenFootballs.com), "may" is nothing more than a disdain-worthy "weasel word" employed by unethical sorts seeking to heft victory banners for unestablished causes. 

No reputable commentator would truck in such an eelish tactic, readers were to believe. Surely, not integrity paragon Charles Johnson.

Except that, mere days following his anti-"may" entry, Johnson loosed "New evidence Chuck Johnson may have been behind the 'Pretty Little Liar - Rape Hoax' posters at Columbia." 

Johnson, it seemed, had discovered that the recently cast-out "may" did have usefulness to his own online hitman purposes. 

In fact, not satisfied with just employing the dreaded and despicable "may" in his lurid headline, Johnson larded his broadside with a virtual regiment of tissue paper-infantrymen: 

"someone hung posters;" "someone created a twitter account;" "More than a few people suspected Johnson may have been behind this stunt;" "interesting development that strongly suggests;" "possibility" Chuck Johnson had been "one of the first people to follow that account." 

Charles Johnson darkly observed the account had been established "by Chuck Johnson himself, or by someone closely associated with him."

Now, to be fair, the founder of LittleGreenFootballs.com does endeavor to construct a case beyond mere guess-status. And he does offer some compelling circumstantial evidence. 

But at the end, he is forced to admit, "Obviously, this isn't absolute proof Chuck Johnson was involved...We may never know the truth...Draw your own conclusions, dear reader."

I do not know either Chuck Johnson or Charles Johnson. What little I have heard of both was unimpressive. 

But I do recognize corruption inspired by a singlemindedness that sneers at objective standards of fairness and reason, when abiding by them would impede partisan ambition. 

No "may" about that.  


* * * *