Arguing From a Case Not Yet Made

Today's Commercial Appeal carries an editorial about their Rusty Hyneman investigation that I commented on over the weekend. It is an argument for a case not yet made.

They have some circumstantial evidence but nothing a prosecutor would bring to court. They make assertions but do not have the facts to back them up, relying instead on a natural skepticism by the Memphis public toward their City councillors and other public officials.

For example:

There's no question Hyneman has quite a giving streak in him, at least where certain people with the power to help him later are concerned.

This makes me ask: Did they look at his other giving? Is he truly a naturally generous person, aiding local charities and other friends? Does he routinely stake his finances for other people, acquaintances not in government or in a position to help him?

We don't know, so it's a grey area that Hyneman can hide in. Prove that he only gives to those in government who can aid his development empire and then you will have locked down the point made above.

As the original story noted, Joe Cooper also is involved in the largesse, and he's done it for other government officials. Yet, he is getting a pass right now. Why is the CA coming down on one but not the other?

For that matter, where is the investigation of Turley, Belz and the rest of the Downtown Cabal? (Start here for some upsetting news.) Heck, what is Kevin Kane, of the Convention and Visitor's Bureau, doing with all our tax money? Does he involve City Councillors and County Commissioners in all that wining and dining and schmoozing he has to do? Isn't that a bit of a conflict of interest?

It's a nice start, but the paper still has a long way to go and many panderers to go before they get there.

Like Holt, other elected officials who have been on the receiving end of Hyneman favors have described him as just a really good friend. The fact that his company regularly appears before the council and commission to request approval for land-use changes has nothing to do with anything, they claim.

That's just plain silly. Any elected official who believes Hyneman isn't looking for favorable treatment in return for his many acts of kindness is hopelessly naive. Those who clearly understand Hyneman's game and choose to play it anyway are corrupt.

Once again, the paper fails to show if Hyneman gets more favorable treatment than anyone else -- developer or otherwise -- who comes before the Council. It's just an assumption of the insinuation. Make the case! Give us numbers and then let those numbers speak.

None of this should be taken as me defending Hyneman. On its face, there does seem to be something bad happening here. But that's the problem: it's only appearances, not demonstrable fact.

The CA is only halfway there. Connect some more dots before you wave the picture around. For that matter, connect all the dots, not just the part of the picture you're interested in. Give us the whole story.