I have, on more than one occasion, argued that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was wrong to say he'd heard from a Bain Capital investor that Mitt Romney hadn't paid income taxes for 10 years. It's just irresponsible to argue this way -- national candidates can't be expected to defend themselves against second-hand innuendo.
But let's also be responsible on how we define our terms. Reid's accusations were unsubstantiated and, to my mind, unfair, but that doesn't speak to their accuracy. Indeed, the underlying veracity remains unclear -- Romney claims to have heard a rumor from an unnamed source. Is the rumor true? Is the "extremely credible" source reliable? We don't know.
For Republicans, this makes the Senate Majority Leader is a "dirty liar." Today, PolitiFact endorsed the GOP line, giving Reid's claim the "Pants on Fire" designation.
Many readers asked us to put Reid's claim to the Truth-O-Meter. We conclude that Reid, despite repeating the claim on at least two occasions, has not produced any solid evidence it is true. [...]
Reid has produced no evidence to back up his claim other than attribution to a shadowy anonymous source. Romney has denied the claim, and tax experts back him up, saying that the nature of Romney's investments in Bain make it highly unlikely he would have been able to avoid paying taxes altogether -- especially for 10 years.
Reid has made an extreme claim with nothing solid to back it up. Pants on Fire!
The problem here is with the underlying task -- fact-checking a rumor based on an anonymous source is, at its root, tricky. That said, unsubstantiated claims and dishonest claims are not necessarily the same thing. There's no proof to back up Reid's argument, but there's also very little evidence that he's actually lying -- the only definitive proof would be disclosure of Romney's tax returns, which the Republican candidate has thus far refused to release.
Is the accusation that Reid never had the conversation he claims to have had with his source? How would Republicans and/or PolitiFact know?
The PolitiFact editors added that Reid "has not proven his allegation." That's correct, but unproven allegations are not by definition untrue allegations. Indeed, there's some irony here -- Reid can't back up his argument, but his critics accusing him of dishonesty can't back up their accusations, either.
Unless PolitiFact has seen Romney's hidden tax returns or has Reid bugged to know what private conversations he's having, the "Pants On Fire" designation seems baseless. The Majority Leader has been careless in his accusations, but his critics are attacking him in the wrong way.
Call him out for recklessness and unfairness, not dishonesty.
Leave a Comment:
Politi"fact" like the rest of them, is long in the bag for Republicans. When have they issued a "Pants on fire!" designation for any of Romoney's many many lies???
All those cucumber-sandwich eaters have no understanding of politics anyway.
And I sure as hell can't understand, Steve, why you don't see that this is a good thing, that Romoney is having his feet held to the fire on this, and that for once it's the Republican's getting kicked in the family jewels repeatedly. Which is a Good Thing.
If you click the "Pants on Fire" summary on the politifact front page, there are currently 3 Romney Pants on Fire entries.
Oh, three Romney entries? So Politifact evaluated just one of Romney's comments. That's some fine work.
Mark Felt made unsubstantiated claims that Haldeman authorized the Watergate break in. He refused to provide any substantiation. Were his claims unfair?
Should he have not repeated this claim to anyone? Was it "irresponsible" to do so?
Wasn't Felt also making an argument when he made the claim? Was Woodward wrong to trust that what Felt was telling him might be true, even though he was providing no substantiation for his claims? Is the Leader of the Senate entitled to a similiar degree of trust?
Was Woodward's report to his editors that this is what Deep Throat told him a lie? Was Woodward's pants on fire?
If Woodward had reported this on the floor of the senate, would his pants be on fire?
Eventually it may well be proven whether what Reid said was a lie or not.
Benen's "Logic" is that Reid should sit on the information that he has. That he should remain silent about the fact that someone told him this information.
That Reid is obligated to shut up in the face of stonewalling is stupid.
Indeed, how many times do we read a story in which a print reporter writes something like, "A source close to the Politician X campaign who declined to be named because he is not authorized to speak for the campaign reported that Politician X embezzled millions from the state government and buggered little children?" Hmmm?
And when that reporter is asked to name his source, more often than not he chooses to go to jail.
These are long-standing journalistic standards. How is this different?
To hell with it and f ck it. The Republican Ministry of (un)Truth has simply ceased to be worthy of any respect whatsoever. Do you see Republicans, wingnuts, and the media in an uproar when their Noise Machine puts yet another hunk of massive shhit lies against Democrats out into the ether. Seriously? Think of the crap generated just by the Goob Presidential candidates. Then consider Allen West, King, Issa, ..., do I need to continue?
To listen to them cry over and over about something that could be settled in 10 seconds is a joke. Given that, I don't care is Harry Reid says Mitt Romney does virgin sacrifices. He can say whatever the hell he wants and let the Republicans cry about it. And let them deal with it. They made this environment, and let them stew in it.
And the "fact checkers" have simply disgraced themselves over and over. Our entire society sucks donkey nuts now. Take a look at the clown Glenn Kessler; enough said.
To answer TcInLA, why Steve... It's because liberals are just too fu king squeamish. Can't take their own side in a fight and it's sickening.
Go Harry!!! Aim for the head!
OK, Let's say Romney has been able to legally avoid paying taxes for the last ten years, which I doubt. The fact is a wealthy man can achieve legally evading taxes in this country and do so with the blessings and lawmaking of our government, some of which I suspect Reid had a part in it's creation.
The real problem is we need total Tax Reform. If Reid is sincerely concerned with Romney's deductions and loopholes, where is Reid's Tax Reform bill?
Tax reform is irrelevant to the discussion.
@From Re: #1.6
Why does Reid have to have a Tax Reform Bill?
From CSMonitor.com By David Grant, Staff writer / August 2, 2012
"Tax reform takes bipartisan step in Senate. Could something come of it?"
"The comprehensive tax reform urged by many in Congress and both presidential candidates may have taken a small step forward on Thursday, as the Senate Finance Committee passed a package of some 50 tax provisions that have expired or are about to expire at year's end on a bipartisan, 19-5 vote."
You stated,"The fact is a wealthy man can achieve legally evading taxes"
This makes no sense. I thought tax evasion was illegal. You can't legally do some thing that is illegal.
Do we have deductions that allow really really rich people to pay low taxes? Yes.
Because this topic is such a crucial one, we deserve to see the tax returns of the candidates. We can then judge for ourselves whether the candidates will PERSONALLY benefit from tax solutions THEY propose. That would be a conflict of interest and needs to be at least made public and should be discussed and explained.
Maybe Mr Reid saw this one?:
http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2008/03/06/top_iraq_contractor_skirts_us_taxes_offshore/
mega-Ka-ching..$$$$$?
Disgusted and maphi
If Tax Reform and the fact that wealthy people in this country can pay little to no taxes in this country isn't the issue then why do you and Harry Reid want to see Governor Romney's tax returns? It's obvious he has done nothing illegal or the IRS would be on it and that would be in the news.
Do you want to see it because you believe all 1%'ers should pay more taxes above and beyond the law, including Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Mitchel, and Boehner? Because if that's the reason, all 1%'ers are guilty and the only fix I can think of is to Reform the Tax laws, which is the responsibility of all Congress especially the leaders like Reid.
I really don't get any other purpose to see the tax returns or repair to the problem, please enlighten me.
PS: TRMS - I'm really surprised you allow some of this implied language on this blog.
JohnMesserly, you just gave me another thought (thank you).
I just wrote below that I think Harry Reid (and others inside the Beltway) have information that can't be legally disclosed about Romney's tax returns for the past 10 years, to the point that confidence is EXTREMELY high (I doubt Reid would have made his extraordinary claim otherwise).
Some have suggested that some leakers could have come from within the McCain campaign, and that makes sense within that "old clubby Senate" of yore, where staffers and backchannels in the steam rooms and such still exist, from before the days of the Scorched Earth Republicans. I think that's one source.
I also think there's people in the IRS or FBI who have access and have done a little checking too. I'd bet actual document copies have been delivered to Reid, but he can't acknowledge having them or say how he got them. Like I said, his confidence is just too high.
That said, maybe we need a new Mark Felt, or maybe a Daniel Ellsberg. I've joked that Reid got his info from a Deep Throat, not really believing it.
BUT that does raise another issue. Someone, maybe a bunch of someones, have possession of those forms outside of the Romney campaign. The future of the country is at stake here. Could a completely illicit and illegal leak to the media be in order, a leak of conscience?
Ellsberg had dire justification: people were fighting and dying in a war, unnecessarily. He violated laws, honored his conscience, and was prepared to go to prison for it.
Those violating a condition of employment, non-disclosure agreement, or oath of office (if working for a government agency with access to documents for private taxpayers) would have to have a strong justification to make such a leak.
Life and death are not at stake here. But the future of a country is. I don't know that I could be that kind of whistleblower of conscience in this instance, if it were me in a position of public trust.
But if all I had was a non-disclosure agreement I signed on the McCain campaign, and I was watching this guy betray the public trust in running for the highest office in the land while blatantly lying through his teeth about overseas assets... maybe a media leak is in order.
I don't know. John, what do you think?
I love it that Harry is coming out of his shell a bit for the campaign. But I hate to think he is sayig anything that isn't true. It doesn't sound like him to stoop to GOP levels of truthiness.
Ideally, the individual who phoned Harry will have the intestinal fortitude to come out and say "yes, I called Senator Reid and told him this, and here's how I know it to be true..."
Unfortunately such a thing would impossible for an imaginary friend to do.
Once, there were the people who were "the Press", and back in the day, if a politician was coy about his finances, and a claim was made by a credible source regarding them, it was fair game to ask where did the politician's money come from, and a member of the Press' duty to ask questions and try to find out. Hell, it's public service and should be profitable..
Now we have something called Media, which seem to be functioning (I'm thinking of Richard Cohen's Wapo monstrosity today) as the protectors of politician's money, anxious to keep these matters cloaked in darkness. It seems in the Media's eyes, the Democratic Majority leader is not a credible source (despite the numerous lies of, oh, say, Governor Romney, or Sen. McConnell)...
I know Mr. Reid is not loved in the Washington Press: David Broder seemed to cordially loathe him, and Cohen's column is tinged with disgust. Odd, given the incredible slander President Obama has had slung from all corners of the right, the outrage of the Chattering Classes at Reid's remarks is...outrageous, and telling.
come on Steve, this is some extreme parsing. As much as it burns me up to see Romney and Co. raising lying to an art form, it does us no good to do the same.
Yes, we all believe that there is more in Mitten's tax returns than he is willing to share, but Reid should never had gone down that conjecture road....
Actually, Steve is on the money.
Politifact and other so-called fact-checkers--with their "mostly true," "three Pinocchios" designations--don't even seem to understand what a fact is. To borrow from a Seinfeld episode, you can't be mostly dead. Either you're dead or you're not. The same goes for facts...either they're true or false.
True or false? Did somebody tell Harry Reid what Harry Reid claims? Politifact doesn't know. True or false? Did Romney pay taxes during the period in question? Politifact doesn't know. So, it's impossible for fact-checkers to rule on the issue.
Politifact failed...again. And it's reasonable point out when these not-so-objective arbiters of truth fail at what should be a relatively basic undertaking.
The site should be called "Politif*cked".
To claim Harry is a liar, you have to prove whether someone did tell Harry Reid what Harry Reid claims. The question about whether Romney paid no taxes for several years is not something Harry posits as a truth.
To claim someone is a liar, you must first know the truth. Who are the people that know the discussion at hand between Harry and the capitalist? Is politifact a party to that conversation? I'd bet not.
Politifact has earned our scorn for being patently partisan in the past, but this is a completely different thing. This is part pretending to know something they were not in a position to know, and partly claiming that someone who doesn't reveal their sources is a liar.
In the first part, they could not claim Harry lied without knowing the conversation, or that the conversation never happened--all without knowing the source. Here it is Politifact that is the liar.
But the part that galls: A newspaper is claiming that if you don't reveal your sources, you are a liar.
You know I find the ability to artfully dissemble a real talent for the left. Nobody cares how a fact is defined, nobody cares how you want to define truth. All anyone cares about is that Reid is no better than Joe McCarthy.
Worse, he's fine with that and so are the rest of the left. Obviously it's really OK to do anything immoral to further the cause.
More pure drivel from The Blank, proving every time he posts that those on the right are devoid of conscience and incapable of shame.
Mr. Mitty is too dumb to understand his own irony.
For starters , with mr reid and romney in the lying dept , which one of them is a known liar , and which one is not ? Enough said
Knowing full well he could be debunked in 10 minutes, would Reid have said what he said?
Hahahahaha...
Go Harry!! Aim for the head!
#epistomologyfail
What? Sure he can. He's not a reporter needing to protect a source. Who told him? That would back up or dispute his claim that someone told him this.
And to the accusation that Romney is hiding something, well, glad to know the Left now believe President Obama and his AG are hiding things regarding fast and furious or they would release the document the AG was ready to release to "make a deal" before declaring executive privilege. They must be hiding something or they would release them ALL.
Oh, my, am I claiming both sides are doing the same thing? When will somebody recognize this is true. There are no stand up players, only manipulating politicians. Every one believes their side is doing the less of this.
RobDon:
#8 - Mon Aug 6, 2012 11:01 AM EDT
You have no credibility, Rob.
Rollo,
Oh, I'm sure the other trolls like him. Wait...that's not credibility is it...never mind! :-)
Rollo, part of the Democrat challenge to the law is that it is unfair to give special treatment to military service men/women who are oversees. Obama's position is that they should all be the same. The Ohio law gives special consideration to the service men and women. Obama's position in the legal argument is that this is not right.
15 military groups agree with my position, so I guess they lack credibility, too.
Groups:
Source
And to my original point, do you think Reid can't back up his argument? Sure. He asserts a Bain investor told him information. Easy, who was it? You disagree?
Just like most things out of the mouths of Repugnicons, the troll post above about voting rights in Ohio is not true (words made bold by me):
See it here.
Fr33d0m, thanks for making my point. This quote from your post:
The Democrats are arguing that it is unfair (disparate treatment) to give special voting treatment to service men and women overseas. They do NOT want to give the service men and women special treatment.
If they back RobMe's position, then yes, at least on this issue they most certainly lack credibility. Are you trying to insist that these military organizations are infallible? The military in general? I for one, know better. If those military organizations are supporting restricting the ability of the general public to vote so that they can have special privileges, then they are most definitely acting in an arrogant and selfish manner, and they are not serving the country. Disdain for the general public by those in the military is a phenomenon that is far more common than most people realize it. I saw a lot of it. If any military organization is attempting to aggrandize themselves at the expense of the country or any segment thereof, then they are NOT serving the country, they are serving themselves. Restricting the ability of the general public to vote so that they can have "special rights" is most likely a violation of their oath. But you don't care about that, of course, you are engaging in a level of misrepresentation that is despicable, as far as I'm concerned.
RobDon, as former USAF myself, I'd like to say it's shameful these military groups have been silent up until now about all the voter suppression practiced by the GOP - that's what we serve for, isn't it - to protect the Constitution - which Republicans are trashing - but they let themselves be hoodwinked by a pro-Vietnam-war-cum-Vietnam-war-draft-dodger into supporting yet another gobsmacking lie by said draft dodger. Shameful.
EntropyRules, that's some strong accusations against a lot of men and women who have served our country.
June Day, first thanks for your service. Your perspective on this issue is certainly more relevant than mine because I did not make the sacrifices you made. I wonder, and you would know more than I, if these organizations are speaking up because it directly involves and affects its members (I don't know, but your point is valid).
Second, I would think it would be difficult to "hoodwink" all of these organizations.
Appreciate that, RobDon. And as I'm sure almost all servicemembers past and present would say, "ain't nothing to it." In my own case, as a young woman growing up during the Cold War, I was amazed that I'd been born an American - and just grateful. I wanted to give something back - I was keenly aware of the kind of freedom I had in my life to be whatever I wanted to be. (Not that it all worked out exactly as I planned!)
Okay, present day -- take a look at these links, and then tell me if you think Pres. Obama would want to disenfranchise the military for the very thing they're fighting for -- (and to digress, one of the things about Pres. Obama that I especially appreciate is that he's the first president of my lifetime who took the time to understand how to **properly salute** - not a Hollywood salute - a real, crisp, 100% military salute from the CiC -- that means something):
Links:
Joining Forces:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/joiningforces
Michelle Obama, Jill Biden work to ease military spouse job hunt
http://www.wjla.com/articles/2012/02/michelle-obama-jill-biden-urge-greater-military-spouse-licensing--72680.html
White House - Veterans
http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/veterans/
Then, take a look at the actual lawsuit filing - for those who would rather not have their news pre-digested:
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/ObamaforAmericavHustedcomplaint.pdf
Lastly - something that 2008 candidate Obama said that really got to me - that he would provide our troops in Afghanistan the resources they needed -- that really spoke to me -- whereas McCain said we would just "muddle through." Yes, the policy in Afghanistan is more complicated than that - but, to my ears, candidate Obama understood that the Afghanistan troops needed the basic support from a CiC that had theretofore been missing. And let's talk about how our Commander-in-Chief put his own skin in the game to pursue and get bin Laden. RobDon, we know that if that mission had failed, folks such as yourself would have feasted on Obama's flesh (politically), even though conservatives also turned Bush's spectacular failure around 9/11 into a hero's tale. (Yeah, and I'm a New Yorker, too, working downtown on the very day of 9/11 - Bush was no "hero" in my book.)
Back on track - Romney -- ducked Vietnam, yet, pro-Vietnam-war-yet-five-sons-not-serving-ever-yet-Romney-pro-Israeli-strike-on-Iran-neo-con-stuffed-foreign-policy-team. WHY would military groups throw their weight behind that piece of work?
Carefully-Expressed-Answer: troops are the folks who are to the right and left of us. I experienced it firsthand. Troops are capable of being extraordinary - they're also capable of being ordinary and as misguided as anyone you'd like to name. Exhibit A, Allen West. That is all. (Yeah, I know "that is all" is a Navy expression, but it's all good.)
Rob
Never once in all your posts did you responde to the FACT that Ohio is trying to CHANGE the law to take away voting time from all Ohioans except serving military.
Obama is not trying to take these voting times from serving troops, he is trying to RESTORE them to other Ohioans. We say it, you ignore it.
PS Troll-- no members of the VSW are serving now. Or is it just very very few?
liberalbutsane, I wasn't making the case that President Obama wants to "take away" voting time. But the Democrats make the case in their lawsuit that "he" doesn't want the military to have special voting privileges. Thus one could make the case, based on this, he doesn't want the law to stand as it is.
This is politics. It is the same way that Democrats are saying Republicans want to take away contraception. I understand how they reach that but it is not what the Republicans are trying to do. Contraception has been and will still be available. (I also know the response to this so no need for anyone to go there.) It is the way the other side characterizes the action. Surely you can see the thread of logic there.
June, you are correct. I do not think he wants to disenfranchise the military. But, given the fact that the military is one group that votes more Republican, he would like a lower turnout.
Neither do I think Sen. McCain was or is unconcerned or indifferent ("muddle through") to the needs of active military.
That said, I have nothing but the highest respect for your opinion or anyone who has served this country and gives me the rights I (we) enjoy.
I'm not a bit impresssed by RD's classic right-wing "patriotism". As usual with that sort of thing, it's all show for ideological purposes. He obviously thinks it is just great that Ohio is trying to restrict the general public's access to voting. The "fig leaf" of not restricting the military's access to voting is a pathetically obvious ploy to curry favor with the military and militarists. Pandering is pandering, and Ohio is pandering to the military in order to reduce voting time for the general public. RD enthusiastically supports that pandering. I reiterate...if military organizations are willing to have the general public's voting time reduced so the military can have de facto special rights, then they are NOT serving the country. I am not a bit surprised by the actions of those organizations. I learned the hard way not to trust military organizations (branches of the Armed Forces or whatever) or military people in general. No, not all of the apples in the barel are bad, but too many of them are. Too many people seem unwilling to learn from the continual series of military scandals. The American public in general has a nasty habit of occasionally stumbling over an unpleasant truth, picking itself up, and going on as if nothing had happened. If the US military wants to be complicit in a Republican quasi-legal coup d'etat, then it will be to their shame. Such things never turn out well in the end. History is full of examples to that effect.
Wow. I think this defines the difference between me and you about as well as anything. From both large and small scale experiences, the men and women who serve(d) our country are the most upstanding individuals families and our country have produced. And, I assure you, this is not pandering...as you would say, I'm not that smart.
"the men and women who serve(d) our country are the most upstanding individuals families and our country have produced."
All of them? Really? That's a might categorical statement. Yes, it is an indicator of the differences between us. You wrap yourself in the flag, deny you are doing what you are doing even as you are doing it, spout false humility and red-white-and-blue platitudes, etc. The main difference is that I know the difference between right and wrong and try to do what is right. You are a conservative.
As a group, yes. Certainly there are a few exceptions, very few. You don't trust them "in general," and "in general" I trust them. Nuff said.
Don't break your rotator cuff patting yourself on the back. By the way, you are exhibiting the typical troll characteristic of posting on and on and on, even in essentially dead threads, just to have to last word. So, you can talk to yourself.
We have about the same number of postings here, so I guess that qualifies you as a troll as well. But, I guess you'll never read this since you left me here alone.
Well, it was the same thing it came down to with the Dan Rather flap over Bush 43's military record.
The fake document (who knows, it could have been planted by Rove's minions, like bugging his own office) totally upstaged a whole bunch of the research that was both PROVABLE and DAMNING.
But the red herring worked. Misdirection to close it down.
Once more, we return to the halcyon days of yore, when we discussed what the meaning of "is" is.
"I paid plenty of taxes," says Der Mittster.
Yes. Sales taxes, gasoline taxes, airport taxes,- oh, the list goes on and on. Except, of course, for Social Security taxes, because, you know, he is "unemployed." Cue the clever chuckle. . .
So According to this article, It is OK to make any claim against anybody have nothing to back it up, and the accused must be the one to prove the allegations wrong. Isn't that like " guilty until innocent". The way I learned the law un-backed allegations were considered slander and the burden of proof was left to the accuser not the accused. Nothing like listening to a liberal interpret the law.
Wait a minute... isn't that EXACTLY what the Teabaggers, Donald Trump, Joe Arpaio, et al, have been doing about President Obama's birth certificate? So far none of them has shown any PROOF that the president wasn't born exactly where his birth certificate says he was born, yet the Republicans keep on bringing up doubt about it...
So what's the difference? Why is it okay for the right to keep dredging up clearly imaginary stories for the sole purpose of casting doubt on the president's honesty, but when someone on the left questions Romney's vague tax information, it's slander?
Such a pathetic and obvious double standard you guys have...
Exactly what you get without reading comprehension.
So someone proved obama is a socialist?
"So According to this article, It is OK to make any claim against anybody have nothing to back it up, and the accused must be the one to prove the allegations wrong."
Look at all the wingnuts howl when they think a baseless charge has been hurled their way. They get all sensitive and need to find the nearest fainting couch. I don't see them howling "Unfair! Lie!" on any Friday when the Mendacious Mitt's list weekly howlers are listed. They get one thrown at their head, and just look at 'em.
Hey, wingnuts; it sure would be easy to debunk it. And you know it won't be debunked, don't you? And you know why, too, don't you?
The dainty wingnuts are wilting under the pressure.
Go Harry! Aim for the head!
In all this smoke-and-mirrors the only thing that would be a lie on Reid's part is if he actually didn't speak to someone who told him Romney hadn't paid taxes in the last ten years.
Reid himself has said he doesn't know if that assertion is true - so, the only thing that should be rated as to the veracity of Reid's statement is whether he did or didn't speak with someone who told him about Romney's taxes.
But you see the double standard here? Romney has been running a fundamentally dishonest campaign filled with nothing but gobsmacking lies, and look how "the media" is freaking over Reid passing along a conversation he had.
As for being "unfair" to Romney - really, Benen? Is it possible to be "unfair" to a gobsmackingly relentless liar?
Where are the returns, Romney? And what's in them?
They're none of your business June. Get over it. You'd do better to recognize your Senate Majority Leader is a certified liar. For that matter it would be better to ask where Reid got all his money on a government salary. The Ritz-Carlton is a pricey place to live.
My God, I'm loving this conservative howling - thank you, Harry Reid! Look, Shooter, if Romney were to be president, my tax dollars would be paying his salary. So, what would I be getting for my money? You bet Romney's tax returns are my "bid'ness," my friend!
In shooters world , no one even has a right to ask romney a question , no thanx winger
They don't release the kraken until near the end of the Rmoney movie, silly!
" There's no proof to back up Reid's argument, but there's also very little evidence that he's actually lying -- the only definitive proof would be disclosure of Romney's tax returns, which the Republican candidate has thus far refused to release."
Not at all. No "Bain investor" would actually have access to Romney's returns. Even Romney's best friends (if he has any) wouldn't have such access. They would be only known to Romney's accounting firm and the IRS. Bain would supply information FOR the returns, they wouldn't actually have the returns.
So Reid and. or his (probably) imaginary source are lying.
Is turnabout not fair play? Your "team" started this a long, long time ago.. The Dumbnocrats are just getting started! Want some popcorn? Butter flavor??
Given that there's an article out today about how Romney is "persona non grata" in Italy because Bain "ripped off" the Italian phone company, and then found a way to route its profits through Europe tax-free while Romney was Bain's CEO, and given that Romney has found a way to stuff $100,000,000 into an IRA -- do I really think it's beyond him -- he who is absolutely devoted to amassing and hoarding money -- to have found a way to NOT pay taxes for a significant amount of years? No, I wouldn't be that naive.
He's not persona non grata. That's an actual diplomatic term once again thrown around by people who have no idea what they're talking about.
Logic fail, GOP troll.
Reid has never said that his source saw Romney's tax returns, just that he was a reliable source who had told him that Romney had paid zero income taxes. Since Romney seems quite proud of having paid as little in taxes as possible, this could simply mean that he bragged about it to a business associate.
The fact that you can make one a sequence of events that would lead to a person knowing how much Romney paid, and then declare that the sequence is impossible, proves only that your imagined sequence of events didn't happen, not that there is no other.
Again what Reid says is impossible if you knew anything at all about the way the rich pay their taxes. For instance Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway still hasn't paid it's taxes from 12 years ago in 2000.
No Bain investor COULD have knowledge of Romney's taxes and the supposed "source" didn't say Romney said it, he said he didn't pay.
Again it's an obvious lie by Reid who is very good at such things.
@bannedagain - apparently you've never heard the term, "persona non grata" outside of looking it up at Wikipedia. That's fine. Nobody's perfect.
I'm not accepting or discrediting the 'this is all made up' theories about Reid's statement. The one point that bothers me is that Reid said his info comes from a source, reliable or not, 'who would know as a Bain investor'. Is it possible that this 'source' would indeed know about Romney's tax status at least regarding Bain income - even without seeing/preparing the returns in question - because he/she too was able to take advantage of the exact same tax regulations involved (in at least a portion of Romney's income) and pay no income taxes as well? I agree we really won't know anything without a review of the returns in question.
@11.5
It's fair to question the truth of Reid's statement. It's fair to question the truth of what the source says. But since the reply starts with the premise that the the source exists, I will move from there.
It is entirely possible that the source has the knowledge that Romney has given him. That could mean Romney told him Romney paid no taxes and was being truthful or it could mean Romney told him he paid no taxes but was not being truthful. In either event, the source could easily have the knowledge that was imparted to him. The factuality of the knowledge would be a separate issue.
Just for emphasis, I'm making no claim on whether Reid is lying or if the source does exist and the source is lying. I'm pointing out that "No Bain Invest COULD have knowldege of Romney's taxes" is a flawed statement.
you are introducing a straw man
the quote is
"Saying he had "no problem with somebody being really, really wealthy," Reid sat up in his chair a bit before stirring the pot further. A month or so ago, he said, a person who had invested with Bain Capital called his office.
"Harry, he didn't pay any taxes for 10 years," Reid recounted the person as saying"
Not Romney told me x y or z.
Again simply not possible unless you introduce all sorts of what if scenarios not actually involved.
"Is it possible that this 'source' would indeed know about Romney's tax status at least regarding Bain income - even without seeing/preparing the returns in question - because he/she too was able to take advantage of the exact same tax regulations involved (in at least a portion of Romney's income) and pay no income taxes as well?"
No, PE companies are set up usually in succession of private placements where investors are offered the chance to participate in one or more investing vehicles unrelated to each other except that are all under one umbrella. Romney's taxes would be far more complicated overall than any of his investors.
you can obviously see why Reid framed it this way.
If he had said a source at Romney's accounting firm had told him, it would have been 100% more credible because they would actually know, but also subject him to instant rebuttal and legal challenge because it would mean business death to a firm that does taxes for the rich to allow such a disclosure even anonmously
I take it you are just as upset about romney going on tour claiming obama does not like the business community? And mr reid is not asking everyone to support him as president
I thought Rachel was through with politifact? Does she feel she needs to reinforce her case?
Team Obama is probably sharing a bottle of bubbly over another day Romney has wasted by refusing to disclose his tax returns.
Worse than wasted -- they're spending a day talking about what the Obama campaign wants them to talk about (Mitt hiding his tax returns), rather than what they want to talk about.
Steve you're playing into the right's victimization meme. It's painfully clear Romney's defense from this point on, against ANYTHING, is to try and shame the accuser, pulling the dirty politics card.
Bottom line: Harry Reid pulled a masterful political move. The ball is in Romney's court to prove that Reid is a liar. Let's keep pounding this home.
This isn't about Harry Reid. Romney can easily squelch all of this by releasing his tax records. Let's see them.
Still waiting on Politifact to fact check this related Romney claim:
But, I won't be holding my breath.
I don't understand why people like Steve, Greg Sargent, TPM and the like don't come out and say what is obviously true:
These "fact checking" organizations show an enormous amount of deference to Republicans over Democrats. They bend over backwards so that Republicans won't be mad at them.
It needs to be said, loudly and often.
Another thought I'd like to add - since "retroactive" and "amended" seem to be Romney's favorite words when it comes to accountability, I would not be surprised to see him produce the last ten years of tax returns fully paid - but only recently fully paid. Then, the pundits would have a field day parsing who was actually correct about Romney having paid taxes for the past ten years - just like when they retreated to the corner when Romney's spokesman offered up the ridiculous "retroactively retired" meme. Romney is the Joe Isuzu of politics.
nice, another baseless accusation
Your reading comprehension could really use some brushing up.
or perhaps your writing skill?
That's like saying I wouldn't be surprised if that rumor about Romney beating his wife has some truth to it.
Do you understand the difference between speculation and "baseless accusation"? Speculation is what I wrote. "Baseless accusation" is Romney's claim about the Obama administration with regard to voting in Ohio.
I'm not defending Romney as a truthful person, who would take on such a ridiculous quest!
I'm making the case that if you want to be "the good guys" you give up the right to engage in the same tactics, as the bad guys as the price of wearing the white hat.
Banned - wrong.
We're the good guys because of the end goal. Sometime you have to slog through mud in order to get there. Then you wash yourself off.
Most of the world's most heinous governmental crimes have been committed by people declaring just such sympathies.
It's called the ends justify the means. Perhaps you've heard of it?
Romney apparently has. He's got a gobsmacking lie going on right now about Ohio voting/Obama campaign - yet, you're in here defending Romney tooth-and-nail. He doesn't deserve it. He really doesn't.
Banned - the paid troll - p
Yet another statement of fact that is NOT a statement of fact. Did you run out of bible quotes?
Bwaaahaha!
Now if Romney were really as smart as he supposedly is, he should ask why Harry Reid was referred to as Mr Clean Face by mobsters in wiretaps from his days as Gaming Commissioner. No, not Mr Clean but Mr Clean Face because that was the only part of him that wasn't dirty.
Given the company Romney is keeping these days, (Sheldon Adelson - under foreign and domestic investigation for corruption six ways to Sunday) he really doesn't want to go there.
I just love how the Repubs want to be all self righteous - like their hands have EVER been clean. Ha!
This isn't about Reid - it's about the vulture capitalist who won't live up the creed his own father set down.
Show me the tax returns Mitt!
If he does will you vote for him? (cross your heart)
If he does people other than me WON"T vote for him.
You know that - and the people that pay you to troll here know that too.
Again see Adelson is not Romney but you nicely pretend that becuase he may or may not have problems with the law, then Romney does. However in my post, Reid IS the person mentioned and you can look it up if you so choose.
@bannedagain - I can see from your posts that looking at the bigger picture is not something you seem to routinely do. I do hope Romney takes your advice!
june
Interesting observation. You mean the bigger picture is defeating Romney, no matter what tactics it requires.
"For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"
Bwaahaha! Quoting the bible as a guide for political tactics.
How about the line about it being easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man going to heaven.
Ha!
Is Romney trying to go to heaven? DC seems an unlikely place for it.
You just don't get it do you?
How about another bible quote?
My real point is probably that we are all going to hell in January no matter who wins.
No, bannedagain. Do your homework. Don't give Romney a pass. He doesn't deserve it. He's planning to take a nice-sized tax cut for himself off the backs of the middle class, make it alright again for insurance companies to jerk you around, send "the rabble" over to fight and die in Iran - while his five sons take a pass - etc. Even if you can't bring yourself to vote Democratic - find a worthier "hero" than Romney.
of course I'll vote Democratic I did in 2008.
That doesn't mean my eyes aren't wide open enough to know that the thrust of the re-election campaign is that Obama hasn't actually been president for the last 3.5 years. the office was vacant apparently.
Banned - you voted Democratic? Bwaaahaha! Since when does a paid Republican troll vote Democratic?
Whew - your nonsense is hilarious.
Really, bannedagain? Because if you have a job - you've got a payroll tax cut in your pocket because of Pres. Obama. If you don't have a job, Pres. Obama fought tooth-and-nail to extend unemployment insurance over GOP obstruction and won - he also produced a plan that would create an additional million jobs to the 3-6 million already created; if you have health insurance, Pres. Obama also fought tooth-and-nail so that your insurance company can't kick you to the curb on a whim; if you don't have health insurance, Pres. Obama fought tooth-and-nail so that come 2014, you'll be able to get it, with your own taxpayer dollars helping *you* out for a change, and not just the Sheldon Adelsons of the world. Oh, and concurrently - he got bin Laden, and set Al Queda on the run. He also turned the economy around from a death spiral to established recovery, a recovery only stalled by Tea Party House ignorance and bigotry. So, it's good to hear you'll be voting Obama, but the "of course" isn't quite apparent from your posts!
The ACA is just ok. I'm a single payer fan myself, but I suppose this was better than nothing. No he didn't fight tooth and nail for it Pelosi did. He was detached and barely even defended it. No the president didn't get Bin Laden, but of course he gets the credit because of the timing which is fine.
The payroll tax cut was a terrible idea because it makes SS less solvent and does little for the economy. Unemployment extension has to end sometime we will see.
Still, Romney is a poor candidate and Obama is the only game in town so I'm signing up for another tour and holding my breath come Januray 22nd
Ok banned where's your proof you hypocrite?
google it
I am soooo glad that Reid is keeping up the pressure.
Like it or not this is the way the game is played now. Democrats have been getting kicked in the teeth on a regular basis because of their Pollyanna approach to messaging.
And this is about messaging. It is not about Romney's taxes or Reid's friend at Bain.
Is it a smear? You bet. Is it something Republicans have done for decades? You bet. Is it a brilliant move by Reid? You bet.
And the Democrats had better wake up and learn how to play the game or they will continue to lose.
This election is over...IT'S TOO LATE FOR ROMNEY......Either he doesn't release the returns and looks like Richard Nixon; if Richard Nixon was a polytheist....
Or he does release the returns and looks like Thurston Howell III........
Watch those donations start heading to Gary Johnson...!!!!
And the thing I don't want to hear is that using these tactics makes us no better than the Republicans.
It's the end goal that makes us better than the Republicans. If you're in a fight and the other fighter continually throws low blows, and wins the fight because of throwing low blows, then you're chump if you don't throw a few too.
That's the real world.
Thats probably what Obama thought when he signed the updated Patriot Act.
Nice try banned. Not really analogous though.
It's probably what he thought when Bin Laden was killed. And I applaud him for that.
how about when he told us he was going to close GITMO and didn't or decided ordering assasinations was ok
Power is very seductive.
banned - you're really searching aren't you? Bible quotes, Patriot Act, GITMO... whew!
yes, I'm trying to draw out some reasonable rebuttal but it looks like I am SOL.
Hey - I've never met a paid troll before. Does it pay well?
The only thing that remains 'unsubstantiated' in Reid's statement is the name of his interlocutor, and if he gave that up, he'd be vilified for betraying his friend. He has done just fine with this.
Why is it LIES when Harry Reid makes unsubstantiated accusations but not when Republicans do? Bachmann's Muslim ghosts and Steve Kings Kenyan birth certificate BS gets a ho-hum from everybody. Is it that we just expect that from the right wing nuts?
There is a difference here, however. Reid's claims CAN be substantiated pretty easily....Romney can show us more taxes. Simple. Is there anyone here that doesn't wonder what is so bad in those taxes that Romney is more willing to risk NOT showing them?
No, Harry is doing us all a service and my guess is that he isn't backing down because he did hear it from a reliable source. You know, it's a very small Morman world out west here. Reid is just protecting his source like any good reporter would, and, just like Romney protects his bundlers names, and Karl Rove protects the money men through his super pacs.
We need to see Romney's taxes because they will tell us what kind of man he is, indeed, what kind of American he is and what he truly feels about this country and his place in it. Because, right now, the only thing we know about the man is that he has been very successful in filling his own pockets.
So, YOU GO HARRY! We've got your back!
"Because, right now, the only thing we know about the man is that he has been very successful in filling his own pockets"
So you're willing to change your mind if he paid taxes are you? It doesn't come across that way.
Change my mind about voting for Romney? No. There isn't much Mitt could do to get my vote and we know how hard he's tried for the last decade to get ANYONE'S vote. He's changed his mind with the wind, flipped completely chasing votes, lied and laughed about it and spent 5 days in Europe with his foot in his mouth. Not even the Republicans trust him. He's a strawman with no backbone, who snivels, whines and snarks and thinks he's entitled to be the leader of the free world even though everything we've seen of him proves the only way he can lead is from behind.
What the tax dilemma proves is just how inept he really is. He didn't see this coming? I'd hate to see how he would deal with the immense problems a world leader faces everyday. Yeah, let's bring this country to it's knees by electing a dishonest, inept guy who's only policy ideas take us back to the Bush years.
Nancy Pelosi decides this is fun:
"Well he doesn't know that," Pelosi said. "Harry Reid is a person who is, as we know, A, is a fighter, B, he wouldn't say this unless it was true that somebody told him that.".
The point being...?
Bwaaahaha!
That everybody is jumping on the bandwagon to say things that can't be disproven
hmmm - a random quote and a random conclusion. And you call yourself a professional troll. You should do better than that.