The Democrat majority leader demonstrated from the floor of the U.S. Senate why Washington D.C. is a cesspool. Then, not content with messing the Senate floor, he went on to tell the Huffington Post that, a "person who had invested with Bain Capital," called his office and said, "Harry, he (Mr. Romney) didn't pay taxes for 10 years!"
Sen. Reid continued, "Now do I know that that's true. Well, I'm not certain."
When Mr. Reid states that Mr. Romney had not paid taxes in 10 years, there can be but two logical -- diametrically opposed -- interpretations: Mr. Romney lawfully paid no taxes because he took advantage of all deduction made available to him by the tax code. Or Mr. Romney is guilty of tax evasion -- a felony.
Now, if Mr. Reid were merely saying, Mr. Romney took advantage of all lawful deductions, then what did Mr. Romney do that any other lawfully acting American wasn't permitted to do? Doesn't the rational person paying federal income tax take advantage of every deduction allowed to him?
But then, what is Sen. Reid talking about when he goes on to say "People who make as much money as Mitt Romney have many tricks at their disposal to avoid paying taxes? What (dirty?) "tricks"?
Aren't those "tricks" known as deductions? Aren't all Americans entitled to take every applicable deduction allowed? And who wrote the code with all those "tricks?" Clearly not Mr. Romney. Aren't the tax laws made by Reid and his cronies in the U.S. House and Senate?
I suggest Mr. Reid intended his remarks to be pejorative. If that is not so, why accuse Mr. Romney of "hiding something, ... and the American people deserve to know what it is?"
Mr. Reid's innuendo is clearly that candidate Romney is a tax evader -- a criminal. What kind of man accuses another of employing "tricks," "hiding something" or criminal tax evasion, and then backs it up with insipidity? ("I don't know if its true." Or, "Now do I know that that's true? Well, I'm not certain.")
Gov. Romney is a public figure. Ordinarily, public men can't be libeled or slandered unless the libels or slanders are made with a "reckless disregard for the truth." But what else is it other than a "reckless disregard for the truth," when Mr. Reid says, "I don't know if its true"?
Does a man act ethically when he implies another is guilty of tax evasion? When he repeats something -- from an unnamed source -- that he does not know to be true? But then of course, Sen. Reid, has a trump card.
For a speech made in the Senate, Article 1 of the Constitution says Mr. Reid cannot "be questioned in any other place." He can't be sued for libel or slander.
In criminal law, a judge can't issue an arrest or search warrant without first finding probable cause. When a police officer applies for a search warrant, and the officer is relying on hearsay of a "confidential source" or "unnamed informant," the affidavit for a warrant must show more than that an informant says, "Mr. X is committing a crime."
First it must show specific facts that make probable a crime is being committed. The affidavit must further factually demonstrate to the judge that the informant (who is not before the court and not subject to penalties of perjury) is a "reliable informant." The American public has been told nothing factual by Mr. Reid which in any way demonstrates that his "unnamed informant" is or was "reliable." Mr. Reid concluding that his source is credible does not make it so.
Instead, Mr. Reid demands that Mr. Romney release 10 years of his tax returns; that is, that Mr. Romney must "prove his innocence." That is the rule of the Spanish Inquisition, not of the American judicial system. In America, men are "presumed innocent until they are proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." A senator should know that. Even a Republican candidate for president should be accorded that presumption. And if Mr. Romney has been evading taxes for 10 years, where has the IRS been?
On Feb. 9, 1951, Senator Joseph McCarthy, R-Wis., said, referring to people in the U. S. State Department:
"I have in my hand 57 cases of individuals who would appear to be either card-carrying members or certainly loyal to the Communist Party, but who nevertheless are still helping to shape our foreign policy."
In 1951, calling somebody a communist was the preferred way of destroying them. Today, suggesting that a candidate is a rich tax-evader seems to be the method of choice.
Americans came to despise Joe McCarthy. As the accuser, Harry Reid has the burden of proof.
If he cannot demonstrate he is acting in good faith, he will deserve to be called, "Dirty Harry" and ranked with Joe McCarthy.
Posted Online: : Aug. 13, 2012, 5:00 am - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'SheaCopyright 2012
John Donald O'Shea
No comments:
Post a Comment