This was posted on another web-site yesterday:
It is appropriate, given this stage in the exposure of the Andy scam, to review the goals, what has been accomplished, and what remains to be accomplished.
Of course, the primary objective had been to stop a scammer in his tracks, minimizing the damage. That goal was accomplished actually several weeks ago, after exposure on a conservative web-site within hours of the first fund-raiser.
The spigot may have flowed richly the first few days of the scam, but the flow constantly diminished, as the scam was increasingly exposed all over the internet, and even ideological allies of the scammer began having reasonable doubts.
Perhaps the cash is still flowing, but it is probable it is just a trickle now, compared with what it might have been; also there is evidence that plans for a further, larger fund-raiser had to be closed down.
So the primary objective was reached a very long time ago.
The secondary objective had been to compel those involved in the scam, to incriminate themselves in their own words. Those involved in the scam are hardly taciturn people, and such self-incrimination has been flowing more lushly than the dollars ever flowed.
This secondary objective is still on-going, although it is long past time all those involved have incriminated themselves; all that comes from them now is icing on the cake, the cake itself already having been secured.
The third objective was to get the ideological allies but ethical opponents, of those involved in the scam, to do their own checking, to draw their own conclusions, to gather their own evidence.
This third objective is gathering steam, and now past unstoppable; and as soon as those on the left, on the liberal side, but ethical, take over the momentum of investigation of this scam, then we on the right, on the conservative side, can probably lay off, relax.
In case anyone needs reminding, this was never an ideological issue, or a personal issue, but instead a matter of ethics. Those who demand "honest and open elections"--a commendable objective, and anyone of any ideological stripe commends them--should be held to the same standards they demand of the rest of us.
While we on this side of the political aisle have disagreements with those on the other side of the aisle, we are allies with those on that side who wish accountability; and we do not intend to mock or deride our allies interested in ethical conduct.
The fourth objective was to get a strict accounting for the funds donated, and their use--this of course being unrealistic for the average public to attain, being more so in the domain of law enforcement and tax revenue agencies.
However, it did, and does, not hurt for the average public to yell and scream about possible financial shenanigans, because such noise ultimately arouses the attention of those who can do something about it.
Finally, we have at times been diverted--at other times not diverted-- by the "sympathy angle." As if it is okay for someone terribly ill, perhaps dying, to commit fraud.
That someone is terribly ill, perhaps dying, is a sad and tragic thing, and our hearts go out to that individual--but one has to keep separate the "person" from the "fraud," and the fraud is the issue here, not the person.