I almost couldn't bring myself to share this story but I think it is worth mentioning for a few reasons. It brings me back to Democrats who complained about President Obama being deemed guilty until proven innocent in the eyes of the "birther" movement seeking information about the President's place of birth. Now the shoe is on the other foot and Mitt Romney's tax returns have become the holy grail for Democrats to expose prior to Election Day.
Report from the Washington Examiner:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said that the burden of proof is on Mitt Romney to prove that he hasn’t evaded paying his taxes, despite the legal principle that a person accused of a crime is “innocent until proven guilty.”
Reid accused Romney of what amounts to tax fraud, but he doesn’t think he to provide evidence for the charge. “I don’t think the burden should be on me,” Reid told reporters on a conference call, according to the Las Vegas Review Journal. “The burden should be on him. He’s the one I’ve alleged has not paid any taxes. Why didn’t he release his tax returns?”
The Nevada Democrat earned a law degree at George Washington University in 1964 — not so long ago that he should have forgotten that due process protections in the American legal system require the accuser to prove that the accused is guilty for a case to stand. Of course, Reid isn’t filing a formal charge, so there is no impediment to him making such accusations.
“What if he has paid no taxes, like I am saying he hasn’t,” Reid told reporters, before mentioning Romney’s offshore bank accounts. “I mean, gee whiz, rather than ask me why I should do this, that is a story you should be writing.”
Reid claimed to have “several” sources who told him that Romney had avoided paying taxes for at least a decade. He wouldn’t name any of those sources.
The quote from Reid which I emphasized above really stood out to me. It is Reid's way of telling the press they should be writing stories alleging that Romney didn't pay taxes for a decade, not asking Reid to verify his claims.
Reid has no evidence to present other than unnamed sources which he refuses to divulge. By this burden of proof, I should be able to claim anything about anyone so long as I can quote some unnamed sources that I never have to reveal.
I don't want to come off as taking a side on this issue but I just have to ask, is this where Presidential politics have sunk?
When you don't have a record to run on, you have to do something to get people's attention.
Is this where politics have sunk? You couldn't tell this from the lack of respect and professionalism the republican party has bestowed upon our president since he took office? Sheesh. I think it's about time the democrats started playing the same game as the republicans. It appears they may be growing a spine.
Where have you been, Susan. Complain all you want about Republican shenanigans, but don't act like the Democrats haven't been doing the same all along.
Each party just does it differently.
A comedian once paraphrased Lincoln, "You can fool all of the people some of the time, and you can fool some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. . .unless you keep doing it differently."
Words that Willard lives by
Stay focused
Reid, as usual, is grasping at straws. Same, left ditch, liberal crap we've been hearing for the last 4 years.
Get a life Reid - and by the way, it's time you left the senate, "For the good of the People".
"Just the facts, ma'am," 714
Taxes are for those who cannot afford lawyers and accountants (or the purchase of politicians).
How hateful are these Democrats! Candidate Romney stated he was prepared to stand against these brutal lies. Mr Romney has offered tax returns for review. Why was not this current accusation uncovered at that time. Do these people sit in a dark smoke-filled room and come up with this stuff! What about their "leader" who has committed so many actions against our Constitution? Look in the mirror Mr Reed and you will see what a failure really looks like. I'm embarassed for you. Do you remember the quote "if you can't say anything nice…don't say anything at all".
This old man is senile and delusional. He is so inept that became a clown. He is another millionare who has no charity to brag about. Romney gives a wow 10% to his church and 20% to charity. Obama gives to charity less than 2% and the difference to pay favors to political friends. Jesus would not vote for the crook and baby killer Obama. He truly believe that abortion improve the economy. Idiota! he is killing the tax payers of the next genetation.
That's only if one considers a person an asset. Here one size doesn't fit all.
I am with Reid! If he won't show them he didn't do them. Or did something so illegal he is afraid to show them.
Hey the law is the law and he complied thus far. I'm with Mitt on this one and just about the only thing I agree with him on. Look I think it's great he was able to place himself in such a position to have all that he has acquired. He knew the system and how to work it and he ain't done yet.
Harry Reid should know that in this country people are considered innocent until proven guilty! Mitt Romney has already provided more information than what is required
Dee Ann:
"Required" by whom?
"Mitt Rockefeller" has built his entire candidacy on a claim that (a) he's a businessman, and (b) that he's honest. I question the first claim, since his entire life has been about destroying business and liking to fire people. Now, Ann Romney says "you people" don't deserve to know what kind of "businessman" he was. I beg to differ.
George Romney had no problem releasing information, because he had nothing to hide (and he wasn't even running as the Second Coming of Mr. Clean).
To paraphrase:
"Governor, I served with George Romney, I knew George Romney, George Romney was a friend of mine. Governor, you're no George Romney."
Yeah but you got to admit there is a much quicker buck to be made by tearing them down than in building them up.
Yes but when you don't have a record to run on, as neither do, you bring out the smoke and mirrors.
Who gives a s**t! What the hell is wrong with you people? Do you all supposedly have something "In Common" with Millionaire Mitt Romney???
You people are NUTS! You don't have any REAL opinions that effect YOU, the common man or woman, do you? You just "parrot" the same ole "Defending the Rich" rhetoric you hear on the radio or watch on TV from the likes of Neo-Cons like Millionaire Rush Limbaugh, Millionaire Sean Hannity, Millionaire Glenn Beck, Millionaire Bill O'Reilly, Millionaire Mark Levin, Millionaire Carl Rove and every other Millionaire who propagates this CRAP to the "gullible" peasant masses who'll sit and watch their s**t!
Millionaire Romney and Millionaire Obama want to send you "peasants" off to a Foreign Land to fight MORE WARS! Doesn't that matter to you? And to die or be maimed for what? Their OIL Buddies? Their Banking Buddies? Come On!!! Are you that STUPID? These "chickenhawk" Politicians wrap themselves and their rhetoric in the American Flag and proclaim it's Patriotic to "Defend American Freedom and Liberty", while they USURP the very Constitution they swear an Oath to Uphold and Defend! It's all Star Bangled BS!
Face the FACTS, ladies and gentlemen. Capitalism is DEAD! We live in a Corpocracy - and a Socialist/Marxist/Fascist one at that. We live in a time of Lawlessness - where if you have MONEY - you get away with ANYTHING! No Rules! No Justice! Just Corruption, Greed, Lies and inflicting Mass Murder upon Countries who have Oil - all in-the-name-of-DEMOCRACY!
The economic divide and/or disparity between the Rich and the Middle Class/Poor is GREATER than it ever was in History! It's the Politically RICH or "connected" who gain the Power through Corruption - and by telling you "peasants" LIES so you'll "run out" and vote for the Rich guy who promises you the MOST! These "Creeps" need to have the POWER! And that POWER, that they CRAVE, like "Jonesing" Drug Addicts - is to CONTROL YOU! YOU ARE THE INSIGNIFICANT PEASANTS!
And here you all are - DEFENDING the very same "Rich Elitist" people who could give 2 s**ts about YOU! Grow Up and start thinking for yourselves! Send a Message to these Elitists - and "Write-In" Ron Paul in November!
As Eric Cartman would say. . .
kick ass!
Think you might just be Preaching to the choir
Nate,
I'm still a young man, in my early 30's. But I'm fascinated by how our politics and social norms compare to those of earlier times. I'm both amused and frustrated when I hear people say that Obama is by far the most socialist president we've ever had or that he's abused executive power more. No objective person could look at FDR's and Obama's records and conclude that Obama is more socialist or more prone to use executive power. They're not even close. You couldn't even put them in the same category (unless your categories are Right and Left).
But people (in general) have no sense of history, even people that were alive during the Great Depression don't seem to realize how Obama compares to FDR.
Likewise, politics has always been dirty. It's been worse than this before. Much worse. I'm reminded of the caning of Senator Sumner. Of course, Brooks behavior was shocking and unprecedented. But I also imagine that Sumner would be removed from Congress if he spoke that way today.
In other ways, I think Congress is actually much worse now than it was then. They do things today that distinguished men of the antebellum era would have never conceived of doing. But at least the dialogue is more civil. . . on the surface.
So relax, my friend, this is nothing to get upset about. Take some small comfort in knowing that things are actually much worse than you think, that this small indignity is not the worst of the treachery going on in Congress.
True but the politicians have learned from history that the worse you treat them the better they like you.
Nate:
With all due respect, we know you don't want to "come off" as taking a side in this issue, but that's not the same as not taking a side in this issue.
To begin with, consider the source. The Examiner? Are you kidding me? This is your source? And it wasn't even a news piece. It was a five-paragraph commentary. By commenting on a commentary, wouldn't you say you were "taking a side"? If you had quoted a news story from a legitimate outlet, and commented on news, that would be different.
EVERY charge against someone is unproven, by definition. People know that. That's why it's called a "charge." In this case, yes, one source was "unnamed," but that person was "unnamed" because he was an underling of Willard, and we know what happens to underlings in those circles when they blow whistles.
Aside from that, it really should be enough to realize that in the tax return Willard delivered, he was paying LESS than 15% income tax. Are YOU paying less than 15%? And this was a return he KNEW in advance would have to be released.
More importantly, Bain has 138 accounts in Grand Cayman, alone. Is it reasonable to assume that Willard had nothing to do with them, or that none are his-the sole owner for so long? Oh, I forgot, Willard says he knows nothing about what went on at Bain. . .
As Newt said during the primary, he knew of no American president who had even ONE Swiss bank account. . .
Why not rely on a respected source, like Britain's Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/08/romney-tax-evasion-robert-gibbs
How about Rupert Murdoch's WALL STREET JOURNAL? They say you can't get a straight answer from him:
http://live.wsj.com/video/mitt-romney-tax-evasion/AC3EBF93-DAA8-4EFD-8626-A56CAEB56791.html#!AC3EBF93-DAA8-4EFD-8626-A56CAEB56791
Here's an exhaustive story, specifically about this issue:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/08/investigating-mitt-romney-offshore-accounts
As I said above, George Romney released TWELVE years of returns. Why? Because he said one or two might just be a fluke, or in this case, purposely sanitized because the dude knew they'd have to come out. And even then, it looks fishy.
If one is running for office on an argument that he's pure as the driven snow,wouldn't you agree that he is then rather obliged to prove that "charges" of impurities in that snow are untrue?
Point taken on sources. I will try to do better.
On this one question you asked:
"If one is running for office on an argument that he's pure as the driven snow,wouldn't you agree that he is then rather obliged to prove that "charges" of impurities in that snow are untrue?"
No. Every presidential candidate has charges against them levied by opponents, some true, some not true. A candidate can choose to respond or not but nothing obliges them to. The voters will judge.
My tax rate is much lower than Romney's, I hired the accounting firm used by Kerry, Geithner and Rangel.
George Romney released TWELVE years of IRS forms, saying one income tax return might be a "fluke." I just realized that "fluke" is a type of FISH, explaining why Willard's return seemed so fishy. . .
Mitt would much rather defend not releasing prior tax forms than defending his record as governor.
Mitt would rather defend not releasing prior tax forms than defending the forms.