BOOM! Harry Reid Just Responded To Mittfalca

[sofa king]

73. A bluff is theoretically possible, I think.

There are really only three main possibilities: Mitt is totally innocent; Mitt paid little to none in taxes (or the disclosure would reveal something else politically damaging); or Mitt is guilty of something criminal.

By obfuscating and stonewalling, Mitt has already clearly revealed that he is not totally innocent--that he could have and would have easily proved five years ago, so that it couldn't damage him today.

Either of the other two options pays off for the bluffer, if the bluffer's objective is to further damage Mitt. One does not actually have to know the details, or even whether is is a political or criminal indiscretion.

One could, I think, safely raise the general accusation of paying little to no taxes without much risk of reprisal, because that accusation effectively covers both of the remaining options.

Having said all that pseudo-logical crap above, there is a strong indicator that Senator Reid is not bluffing, which is that he carefully named and repeated specific things which could potentially be proven false if he was merely guessing. Senator Reid has no reason to risk his own hide in this--though I think he or virtually anyone else might have gotten away with it had they tried.