Romney to Reid: Put up or Shut Up

[Katzndogz]

I have to agree with candycorn: I think it is very odd that Romney is challenging Reid to produce evidence. Romney could have simply (and fairly) criticized Reid for repeating unsupported hearsay. Instead he gives Reid the opportunity to simply retort with something like:

"I can't say who the person was because I would be betraying a confidence. You, on the other hand, can prove or disprove the allegations simply by releasing your own returns in accordance with tradition. You have called me a liar (since I said my source was a Bain investor and you say it was probably the White House) and you have the documents to prove your allegations. Let the American people judge which of us is the liar."

It's up to the person bringing the allegation to prove it, not the person being accused. We don't have prosecutors arresting people and telling them to prove they are innocent. The one bringing the charges has to prove they are guilty.

Otherwise we could just say that Harry Reid murdered someone when he was 20 years old. Now let him prove he never did it.

 

[ladyliberal]

Interesting that after all these years in public life and different offices
this non issue is being pursed by the left

The law is pretty clear - reread it
no disclosure of any information

So lets set the record straight-
you firmly believe that disclosure of tax payer
information on the Senate floor by a Senator is perfectly legal?

So Reid could disclose your tax information tomorrow
on the Senate floor and that would be legal

I have read the relevant portions of the law (including those you declined to provide) multiple times and made several points related to my reading. It seems to me that the way for us to move forward is for you to address the points I have made and which are currently uncontested rather than for me to read through the law again.

Let us set the record straight: the key here is the origin of the Senator's information. If he disclosed information that appears on my tax return (such as my name or my income level) but that he obtained from another, non-tax source (such as a public document or, say, talking to me) then his act would not be a violation of the law you cited. That is not to say that such an act would necessarily be advisable, ethical, non-actionable, or even possible-- but it would not be a violation of the law you cited.

And as I noted in this thread, a Senator speaking on the Senate floor could escape prosecution even for reading directly from a confidential IRS document due to his constitutional immunities.

constitutional immunities as in reference to their actual work.
Also, you seem to be confusing lack of prosecution while in office
with no legal constraint on them.

Now if Reid did break the law in the Senate, it will be like Bill Clinton
he will have to leave office to be prosecuted. Matters that can not be
prosecuted while in office are not subject to statute of limitations.


So lets set the record straight- again

Since you now claim that they can violate the law
where is the law that says they can never be prosecuted for it
even after leaving office.

There is a distinction between temporary and permanent immunity from prosecution. However, I believe I have the proper interpretation. The clause says:

for any Speech or Debate in either House, [senators and representatives] shall not be questioned in any other place.

Your interpretation would seem to rely on a clause that says

for any Speech or Debate in either House, [senators and representatives] shall not be questioned in any other place during their terms of office.

Of course, no such clause exists.

When you make a reference to "actual work", I suspect your implication is that Reid's comments had a political rather than legislative motive and as such may not be covered. There is ample case law to demonstrate that bad motives on the part of a legislator do not remove his immunity: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33668.pdf

You compare a Senator's immunity to that of a president. I do not believe the situations are analogous. Of course, the speech and debate clause does not apply directly to presidents (only to members of congress). Prosecuting a president would be difficult for a few reasons: it would seem to usurp a congressional prerogative (impeachment) and the president could just pardon himself.

However, it does not appear to be impossible (http://s3.amazonaws.com/codepink4peace.org/downloads/CriminalProsecutionofPresident.pdf):

As we understand it, the conclusions regarding indictment of an incumbent
President reached by the Dept. of Justice, the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and this
office, are all consistent: there is nothing in the language or legislative
history of the Constitution that bars indictment of a sitting President…..

This is in sharp contrast to the speech and debate clause, which appears explicitly in the constitution and has been widely clarified by the courts. So, a president is not immune from criminal prosecution (though in practice he is almost impossible to successfully prosecute) but a Senator's speech on the floor is immune regardless of whether the Senator remains in office.

 

[WillowTree]

Assuming "slimey mother fucker [sic]" refers to Reid, I'm not even sure whether he has access to Romney's tax returns. If he does and he did release them he would probably be prosecuted (if caught). I believe there are laws against improperly obtaining tax returns, so his Senatorial immunity for speech would not necessarily protect him. And Reid might well be morally opposed to such an act anyway.

And as I noted in this thread, a Senator speaking on the Senate floor could escape prosecution even for reading directly from a confidential IRS document due to his constitutional immunities. these were your words.





you seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth as well as your ass.

Those are indeed my words, and I stand by them. Could you clarify what about them you find contradictory (which I assume is the point of your colorful idiom)? For reference, here is my understanding of the relevant laws:

1) Disclosing information from a tax form (with some exceptions): illegal

2) Saying almost anything as a Senator speaking from the Senate floor: constitutionally immune from prosecution and lawsuits

3) Improperly obtaining tax forms: almost certainly illegal

then why doesn't the slimey mother fucker release Romney's tax returns?

 

[ladyliberal]

I have to agree with candycorn: I think it is very odd that Romney is challenging Reid to produce evidence. Romney could have simply (and fairly) criticized Reid for repeating unsupported hearsay. Instead he gives Reid the opportunity to simply retort with something like:

"I can't say who the person was because I would be betraying a confidence. You, on the other hand, can prove or disprove the allegations simply by releasing your own returns in accordance with tradition. You have called me a liar (since I said my source was a Bain investor and you say it was probably the White House) and you have the documents to prove your allegations. Let the American people judge which of us is the liar."

It's up to the person bringing the allegation to prove it, not the person being accused. We don't have prosecutors arresting people and telling them to prove they are innocent. The one bringing the charges has to prove they are guilty.

Otherwise we could just say that Harry Reid murdered someone when he was 20 years old. Now let him prove he never did it.

Certainly you are correct that Reid's statement is completely unproven. Note that I said that Reid could have been fairly criticized for relying on unproven hearsay. My point was that Romney's response seemed to be bad politics, not that Romney was morally or legally in the wrong.

 

[Dick Tuck]

why doesnt obama release ANYTHING??

Obama already released 12 years of his returns, and so did Biden. Hell, FDR released 25 years of his returns, going back to when the Income Tax Amendment was first passed.

Tax History Project: Presidential Tax Returns

 

[onecut39]

Actually the most likely source is Reid's best bud and fellow Senator John McCain, who first of all we know HAS the goods and secondly would hate to see Willard Mitt, rhymes with ...., succeed where he had just failed in 2008!!!!

How would McCain know anything about Romney's tax returns?

The McCain camp vetted Romney for vice president.

I like your avatar. Nothing colud represent you better.

 

[Full-Auto]

why doesnt obama release ANYTHING??

Obama already released 12 years of his returns, and so did Biden. Hell, FDR released 25 years of his returns, going back to when the Income Tax Amendment was first passed.

Tax History Project: Presidential Tax Returns

So??????????????

 

[Katzndogz]

There is no precedent to releasing 12 years of tax returns. It's all to find out what Romney's charitable donations were. If they went to any organizations that were anti gay.

 

[Chris]

Biden and obama released their 2011 returns, not 12 years of returns.

Not true.

Obama released 12 years of returns.

 

[Chris]

Romney can never release his tax records because if he does, he will be unelectable and probably end up in prison.

 

[Katzndogz]

Romney can never release his tax records because if he does, he will be unelectable and probably end up in prison.

Romney and Scott Walker right?

 

[Chris]

While voluntary, presidential contenders have traditionally released their tax returns. Romney's father, George Romney, released 12 years of returns as part of his own failed 1968 presidential bid. Obama has released tax returns back to 2000.

Romney digs in against releasing more tax returns | Reuters

 

[Chris]

Romney can never release his tax records because if he does, he will be unelectable and probably end up in prison.

Romney and Scott Walker right?

Thanks for reminding me.

Walker's aide goes on trial next month.

 

[Listening]

Romney can never release his tax records because if he does, he will be unelectable and probably end up in prison.

Romney and Scott Walker right?

Thanks for reminding me.

Walker's aide goes on trial next month.

Let me guess....you'll predict that one too.

Please say they will be convicted (or maybe you have already) because you seem to be batting 0.000

You are nothing but a spamming leftist troll who should not be allowed to breed.

 

[Black_Label]

 

[Trajan]

 

[bripat9643]

Actually the most likely source is Reid's best bud and fellow Senator John McCain, who first of all we know HAS the goods and secondly would hate to see Willard Mitt, rhymes with ...., succeed where he had just failed in 2008!!!!

How would McCain know anything about Romney's tax returns?

The McCain camp vetted Romney for vice president.

That doesn't mean they saw 10 years of his tax returns.

I like your avatar. Nothing colud represent you better.

Thanks, fuck stick.

 

[Rinata]

Actually the most likely source is Reid's best bud and fellow Senator John McCain, who first of all we know HAS the goods and secondly would hate to see Willard Mitt, rhymes with ...., succeed where he had just failed in 2008!!!!

How would McCain know anything about Romney's tax returns?

The McCain camp vetted Romney for vice president.

I like your avatar. Nothing colud represent you better.

And then he picked Sarah Palin!!!

 

[BreezeWood]

Romney and Scott Walker right?

Thanks for reminding me.

Walker's aide goes on trial next month.

Let me guess....you'll predict that one too.

Please say they will be convicted (or maybe you have already) because you seem to be batting 0.000

You are nothing but a spamming leftist troll who should not be allowed to breed.

... because you seem to be batting 0.000

- is that what the Republicans will accomplish if / when they regain the Wisconsin Senate ???

 

[edthecynic]

How would McCain know anything about Romney's tax returns?

The McCain camp vetted Romney for vice president.

That doesn't mean they saw 10 years of his tax returns.

I like your avatar. Nothing colud represent you better.

Thanks, fuck stick.

Willard Mitt, rhymes with ...., gave McCain 23 years of tax returns.