This guy
Patrick Murphy is in a deep hole and he can’t stop digging. He’s been caught lying about his resume three times in the last two weeks.
(One. Two. Three. There are so many, it can be hard to keep track.)
And when a Miami Herald reporter asked him about it, Murphy had a complete meltdown. Murphy’s explanation for lying about his resume was – surprise – another lie. As the Herald noted, "a pattern has developed" when it comes to Murphy inflating his biography.
Reporter: What is your response to all these reports, and do you think you’ve been embellishing your credentials?
MURPHY: Absolutely not.
What about the report that Murphy claimed to be a CPA for years when he only had his license for eight months before leaving Deloitte & Touche to go work for his dad?
MURPHY: So being a CPA doesn’t just mean having that license, right, that means the sort of mind set, right, being able to balance a budget, understanding debits and credits, understanding what financial statements are.
Right…so…Murphy’s response to documented proof that he lied about his experience as a CPA seems to be that he…didn’t actually need to be a CPA to claim he was one? It’s starting to seem like he might not have a viable explanation for any of this at all.
Murphy then responded to another question about a specific instance of resume inflation with perhaps the most easily answered rhetorical question in the history of politics.
REPORTER: Again, when it comes the University of Miami for instance, do you think you embellished?
MURPHY: Absolutely not, and Kristen as you know, we’ve discussed this story. That particular story was talked about after I was a member of the U.S. Congress, right? So who would embellish a resume intentionally after you’re a member of the U.S. Congress, you know, it just doesn’t factually add up.
Who would embellish a resume intentionally? Well, Patrick Murphy, for one.