LOL. Typo in post hardly equates with the aforementioned syntactical butchery in an official letter to Main Justice.
In any event, mea culpa.
Do you know how Congressional offices operate? Staffers write the letters and a robo-signer adds the signature. As someone noted upthread, if this is the best folks can come up with for attacking Bachmann, she’s in pretty good shape, at least on the scandal front, its literacy or lack of same notwithstanding.
Congressional staffers tend too often to be the offspring of influential constituents, or somebody who knows somebody who knows somebody. The average age of Hill employees has to be about 22-23. They are typically recent college (or law school) grads who are paid about the same as the burger flippera at McD’s. They stay for a year or two, develop the contacts they need, and move on their career paths to more lucrative careers.
After the brouhaha with Clinton’s pardons on his way out, there was no way Bush was going to follow suit. These letters from Congressmen really aren’t that important (except, of course, to the potential pardonee), and were less so in the waning days of Bush’s term. At that point, anyone at a high level in the DOJ was too busy circulating his or her own resume to worry much (if at all) about what some Congressman wanted. Those Bush pardons were few and far between, and everyone knew that was going to be the case.
Indeed! I can let a misused homonym ("seen of the crime"), an accidental Malapropism ("Wall Street typhoon"), or a Spoonerism (e.g., "White Horse souse") by without a comment - they're totally forgivable, since in most cases the "culprit" is guilty only of haste. The same is true of banal typos.
But illogic in official letters?! And willful, self-serving illogic?
Fail!
Regards,