Coleman did a horrible job with this questioning. She was only in the job around a month at the time, but that's no excuse.

Still, let me play devil's advocate.

Mike, you talk about logical fallacies, but you don't recognize a loaded question like "have you conducted an investigation?"
The inference is that there should have been an investigation --but as a member of the House banking committee, Grayson would know if there were one.
He's just trying to get her to say no, she isn't still hitting her wife.

(He's a representative, not a senator. He's also a member of the House subcomittee on -- get this -- Capital Markets, Insurance and Government Sponsored Enterprises and the subcomittee on Oversight and Investigations, but he doesn't know if there have been investigations into the Fed's balance sheets regarding the bailout and stimulus? Pleeze. He's either showboating or pretty incompetent himself.)

If he thinks there should be an investigation into Lehman Brothers, shouldn't he say why?
It's not like there's a big mystery about what happened. The Fed (including Geitner who worked for the New York Fed branch at the time), the Treasury Department and a number of banks tried to put together a rescue package for Lehman.
When that fell apart, Treasury and the Fed decided, along with Bush, not to use taxpayer dollars to rescue it.
After the "shock waves," they decided AIG and the major banks were "too big to fail," and we were off to the races with the bailout.
And all you guys started shouting "socialism." I mean, you do realize he's trying to get her to agree with him that the taxpayer bailout should have started earlier?

And once again, why would there be an investigation of the expansion of the Fed's balance sheet? Do you even know what that means?
She should have asked him what should be investigated.

The Fed's balance sheet has increased because of the money it's borrowed, at the behest of Congress, largely from the Treasury, for the the bank bailout and the stimulus package.
Also, since the economic crisis, banks have started holding their reserve money instead of using it to buy short term commercial assets like they used to do.
The Fed has started doing that instead to prop up the liquidity in the banking system and has needed to borrow money to do it.
I mean, I know that. A member of the banking commitee doesn't?

What the hell does he mean by "drawing conclusions" about that? What kind of conclusions?
He wants her to tell him who got that money, but Bernanke has decided not to say, or say what the collateral is, claiming it could cause a run on the banks that got the money.
So she's supposed to "investigate" a decision by her bosses? What should she investigate?

Bloomberg reported the Fed has committed up to $9.7 trillion if necessary -- that's the off the balance sheets actions it's taken, but it hasn't "extended" anywhere near that much.
The portfolio, as Grayson points out, is closer to $2 trillion.

What is there to "investigate?" The board of the Federal Reserve, in conjuction with Congress, two presidents, and the Treasury Department (where the Fed borrows this money, which gets it from China eek) made that decision.

He berates her for not "investigating or auditing" the losses and gains of the money from the bailout.
However, the Fed has been issuing a report on profits and losses from the bailout loans money once a month since last September. (Once again, I know that, but a member of the banking committee doesn't?)
But that's not a function of the inspector general. Should she duplicate other people's jobs, does Grayson think there's something nefarious going on? He doesn't say.