"Logic Volcano" is my new metaphor for a situation fraught with hazard and the danger of self-immolation for any participant who is forced by circumstances to explain seemingly illogical behavior logically.

I imagine someone can walk up to the rim of the crater of a logic volcano and survive, but they have to offer up some explanation in which the response of the (unfortunately bloodthirsty) villagers is "Yes. That makes sense. I get it now. " If the potential sacrificial offering to the gods of common sense fails to meet that standard, the villagers crowd around posting furiously on their message boards and twitters until the subject is either nudged by group skepticism into the burning center or chooses to jump in defensively shouting "That's my story and I'm sticking to it."

Let us now turn to the latest person to trudge up the slope of the active and rumbling and smoke spewing natural disaster known collectively as "the damn email" of Hillary Clinton, Loretta Lynch.

AG Lynch (known after in this essay as AGL) was ensnared in the toxic fumes simply by virtue of her position, head of the Obama Justice Department at a time when the actions and inactions of his former SOS Hillary Clinton first came under scrutiny. I won't go into any of the preamble - read the timeline- but let's just skip to the final crunch point.

Long story short, AGL decides that for some reason or reasons, she will abdicate, abrogate, abandon, (pick your verb) her usual duty or responsibility to make the decision as to whether to prosecute former SOS HRC after a long and thorough investigation.

The most interesting question to ponder is - when and why did she arrive at her decision to punt her executive mandate? She offers two conflicting (IMO) variants.

In variant A she decided long before the Airport Incident to punt.

If that's the case, why not just go the recuse road from the getgo and tell us why - too close, personal relationship, etc. and appoint an Independent Prosecutor as some suggested the day this can of worms raised its head?

In Variant B- AGL opines that the public's concern about the Airport Incident caused her to allay their fears by voicing a solution she had already decided upon to address an issue the public didn't know they had, but she did, but they became aware of . . . after the airport incident?

So how does that make any sense, at all period?

AGL also borrowed a play from the Clinton playbook - deflecting questions about her own behavior by deflecting effusively about the professionalism of her own underlings.

Which brings me to another point. AGL made a big point, as have others in other simular situations about how the big decisions are always being made by "career professionals", the implication being that the career professionals are the oak trees of government service, standing strong and stalwart and keeping the government running despite the seasonal influx of temporary political appointees who will bloom briefly and vibrantly but then die a predictable and natural death, go to seed and flower in other political fields.

You know what? I think that possibly the people most prone to political cowering and favor currying would be the people who rely and depend on their jobs as their long-term livelihood and I would imagine that they would be the last people in the world to buck whatever the obvious gales of the day are. Instead of the oak, which stands stalwart and falls in strong winds, perhaps they are more the reeds, who bend and survive to outlast other storms on other days in other administrations (See Aesop).

I am in no way impugning the integrity of long-term, life-long bureaucrats who basically keep the lights on and the trains running in our government, but I am saying that common sense tells me that large numbers of them may be more interested in going with the flow and surviving multiple executive suite changes than in standing up to the new SOS or AG and saying "Sorry. Can't do that. Not proper. Not legal. Not ethical." What happens to the "professional class" i.e. middle management in the corporate world when regime change is implemented? I've been there. They keep their heads down and try to get noticed favorably.

One last thing about the Lynch testimony that I noticed. I have been dying for someone to flat out ask - "Who was there?"

I have heard it was just BC, AGL and her husband and I have also heard/read that some of her staff was present. If some of her staff was present, that would make many people feel a lot better that the meeting was just a boring personal meet and greet with Bill blathering on about his golf game his grandkids and his travel. But, if I am not mistaken, and I am still waiting for the transcript, I thought I heard AGL say that the people on the plane were: her, her husband, BC and the pilot and co-pilot? Really? The pilot and co-pilot? Were they just offering the left-over peanuts? Vacuuming? I know that we have sequester and cutbacks and I have no idea what the expectations are of government pilots in these times of austerity.

Assuming that the crew wasn't roaming the aisles and asking the confab attendees to hand over their Styrofoam cups, there actually did occur the worst possible scenario - a private half hour meeting inside a government jet on an isolated tarmac between the possible target/witness of an investigation and their prosecutor without any credible witnesses as to what occurred or who said what.