So ... in other words you are saying that it IS possible that Mitt (or henchlings) was in fact behind all of it and you have no idea whether he was or wasn't (contrary to your post at #51).
What I am saying is that I can’t prove he was NOT behind it, because it is impossible to prove that negative. (It is not always impossible to prove a negative, if for example Romney had died before the attacks, that would be a pretty good “proof” that he wasn’t responsible for them).
As to wht I have an idea about, you could put ANY name in the phrase “X was responsible for the attacks on Sarah Palin”, and I would equally be unable to prove that “X” was not responsible.
However, in the absense of any evidence that “X” was responsible, I would feel comfortable saying “X wasn’t responsible”, even though it would be more accurate to say “There is no evidence that X was responsible”.
To illustrate: I would say that you are not a cold-blooded killer. But if you pressed me, I would only really be able to say that I have no EVIDENCE that you are a cold-blooded killer. I have no “idea” whether you are or are not a cold-blooded killer.
In general, when it comes to assigning responsibility to people, I feel comfortable requiring that those who want to assign the responsibility have the burden of proof, because there are 6 billion people in the world, and a vast majority of them are NOT responsible for a particular event, and it would be rather hard to show that each of them was not.
I will say that there is a lot more evidence that Romney bears some responsibility for Scott Brown’s win than that Romney bears responsibility for McCain losing the election.