Reid doubles down on his ‘brazen lie’ about Romney’s taxes

Harry Reid took to the airwaves in Nevada Wednesday and continued his practice of dissembling, dodging and outright denying his prevarication on the Senate floor in 2012 when he said Mitt Romney had not paid taxes for a decade. In fact, he doubled down.

A caller to KNPR public radio asked Reid about that “brazen lie,” prompting Reid to assert:

First of all, Ryan, there were no brazen lies. What I said is the truth. Mitt Romney has refused and has still refused to show us his tax returns. He gave us the main part of two tax returns. These were when he was running for president. That is not a true sign of what he had done.

Remember, I guess the new plan we have to look at is Donald Trump, who shows us nothing. Prior to Trump it was standard procedure going back many, many decades that presidential candidates would give us 10 years of their tax returns. Mitt Romney has never done that.

So, there was no brazen lies. I did what was necessary. He fought even giving those two years that were meaningless because he was already running for president and all of his financial dealings where he became an extremely wealthy man. We were unable to see any of that. So, you can brand it anyway you like but it was no brazen lies. It was the truth.

Actually, Romney released both his 2010 and 2011 tax returns, the latter in its entirety, as well as a notarized letter from his tax preparer that gave a summary of tax rates from his tax returns for 20 years.

Meanwhile, Reid — who said in 1974, “Any man or woman who will not be completely candid about his or her finances does not deserve to be in public office”  — refuses to release his own tax returns and says his congressional financial disclosures, which list assets and liabilities in broad ranges, are sufficient.

In 1974, while running for the Senate against Paul Laxalt, Reid claimed there were years in which Laxalt paid no taxes. He was proven wrong then, too.

Harry Reid (AP photo via KNPR)

Harry Reid (AP photo via KNPR)

Advertisements

37 comments on “Reid doubles down on his ‘brazen lie’ about Romney’s taxes

  1. Steve says:

    And he seems to have very little love in his ever shrinking heart for Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

    Saying things like;

    “The DNC has been worthless….I hope they will choose someone who is a full-time person, not like that congresswoman from FL.” HT Ralston twitter.

    Reid’s right, the Democrats lost the election, Trump didn’t win. In a campaign where both sides ran heavily flawed candidates, the Democrats failed to run an effective campaign.
    And Podesta gave away his password!

    http://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2016/12/22/shots-fired-harry-reid-trashes-the-worthless-dnc-and-that-congresswoman-from-fl/

  2. deleted says:

    Thomas, why are you apparently more concerned with Reid’s “blatant lie” (which you never exactly identify by the way) and unconcerned with the veracity of a president elects income statements?

  3. I have criticized Trump.

  4. Anonymous says:

    congratulations

  5. Vernon Clayson says:

    “deleted”, what difference will Trump’s income statements make in your life, or anyone else’s? And at this stage what difference will it make in your life, or anyone else’s, that Reid lied about Romney, only the most naive believed that BS, it’s only in Harry Reid’s mind that it put Obama over the top. It was that hopey changey thing that carried Obama, some believed he might actually do some good in a second term. They were wrong, of course, the world became a more dangerous place and Trump handily beat Clinton.

  6. deleted says:

    Vernon imagine for a moment that Trumps tax returns showed he lied about his income and that he cheated on his tax returns.

    This makes a difference as to whether he is guilty of a crime, and that has an impact on whether he is fit to be president.

    If Trump is not president, it would have an impact on every Americans life (and lots of people who aren’t Americans) and as our former, now infamous president Richard Nixon said “the American people deserve to know whether their president is a crook”

  7. Steve says:

    Well, Patrick, imagine for a moment Trump’s returns show he followed every law and regulation regarding the the taxation of his money and assets.

    Since your are putting forth unfounded theories,
    Would you then become a Trump supporter?

    Never mind…the answer is already clear.

    Probably includes some kind of (wished for) insult too.

  8. Vernon Clayson says:

    “deleted”, when did Trump state anything publicly about his income that would indicate he lied?? He surely has a battery of sophisticated accountants and tax lawyers checking every single minute detail, he didn’t just fall out of a tree, or hustle donations from leaders of Islamic nations.

  9. Bill says:

    Like the Clintons, Reid has grown wealthy holding public office. How does that happen on the salaries that are paid? How did Harry become
    a multimillionaire on government salaries?

    Harry calling on others to release their tax returns while refusing to release his own seems the ultimate hypocrisy. If the public’s concern is about a public servant’s finances it would seem that the standard should be the same for a U. S. Senator as for a Presidential candidate.

    And, Harry is well aware that it is almost impossible to be successful in a defamation action if one is a politician or public figure and usually Harry is careful to make his most outrageous and defamatory statements from the Senate floor where he is absolutely immune from any defamation action, no matter how outrageous his false statement might be.

  10. deleted says:

    Vernon while Trump has made several comments about his wealth and charitable contributions he has made, that is not really my interest.

    And whether he has sophisticated people working on his taxes or not is similarly unimportant (lots of wealthy people, cheat on their taxes after all) the question is whether it’s important for the American public to know whether their president lied on his tax returns or not. Pretty simple really.

  11. Bill says:

    Then the same should apply for all public offices? In other words, prove to us that you didn’t cheat.

    Theoretically, no one knows what is in a tax return except the preparer, the taxpayer and the IRS.

    Maybe we ought to make it a matter of public policy that anyone who runs for public office should be required to undergo an IRS audit thereby making the IRS even more of a political body than what it has been in the past. It still gives me such a boost of confidence when I remember Lois Lerner invoking the 5th amendment when questioned about her activities as a public servant..

  12. Donald B says:

    Harry Reid is a despicable man. Nevadan’s should feel fortunate that this lying, poor excuse for a public servant, will no longer be seen as representing Nevada in the national media.

  13. deleted says:

    Many high level (up to Cabinet level) nominees, and others are indeed required to submit their tax returns to the Senate prior to their confirmations. The reasons for the requirement are obvious and aren’t limited to these high level officials.

    Yes, the president ought to be required to do so, and in the last 50 years or more, most of them, even as candidates for office, have done so.

    As so many on the right chant so often, with regard to burrowing into the privates lives of American citizens, in “the interests of national security”; if you don’t have anything to hide why worry”?

    “Dozens of nominees to Cabinet- and sub-Cabinet-level positions in the Treasury Department, Social Security Administration, Department of Homeland Security, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and other agencies are required to submit their tax returns to the Senate, where they are reviewed by the relevant Senate committee, sometimes working with the Joint Committee on Taxation.”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/many-public-officials-must-share-their-tax-returns-why-not-the-president/2016/08/17/196e2b8c-63f2-11e6-be4e-23fc4d4d12b4_story.html?utm_term=.568a9c6655c8

  14. Rincon says:

    The most likely explanation for Trump not releasing his taxes is that the damage to him is less if we are left to speculate on the heinous things he’s done with his money than if we actually know.

  15. Steve says:

    OR, since nothing requires it, he won’t do it.

    Privacy. Even Presidents are supposed to be afforded that.

  16. Bill says:

    Heinous?. Well, we certainly need to knows what “outrageously evil and wicked” uses he might be failing to disclose on how he “used” his money.

    Let’s speculate on the “outrageously evil and wicked things” that a tax return could reveal. Maybe he contributed to NOW, the DNC, PETA or the Sierra Club? .

    I am sure that if his tax returns contained information of his heinous use of his funds that it would surface from sources other than his tax returns. Maybe he just wanted to keep them private like Harry does.

  17. Steve says:

    President. It appears that is all the left thinks about anymore.
    You guys are losing and you refuse to see.

    WASHINGTON (AP) — In boasting about his tenure in the White House, President Barack Obama often cites numbers like these: 15 million new jobs, a 4.9 percent unemployment rate and 74 months of consecutive job growth.

    There’s one number you will almost never hear: More than 1,030 seats.

    That’s the number of spots in state legislatures, governor’s mansions and Congress lost by Democrats during Obama’s presidency.

  18. Rincon says:

    More will come. State legislative races are so small that a couple of hundred thousand dollars can provide a huge boost for a candidate, making him or her indebted in the process. Chicken feed for billionaires. Dark Money documents it in North Carolina, but of course, you don’t like what it says, so it must not be true.

  19. Rincon says:

    BTW, according to Time, Exxon Mobil spent $170,000,000 on lobbying since 2006. Assuming that we’re talking about Congress, that comes to $317,757 per legislator from only one company. How is it even possible to spend that much money honestly on only one legislator? And this is only ONE company. Do you think there might be just a few others companies and billionaires? No room for John Q Public of course.

  20. Steve says:

    “Dark Money documents it in North Carolina, but of course, you don’t like what it says, so it must not be true.”
    Way to put up fake stuff then argue it as though it really happened.

    170,000,000? oh, the horror.

    ExxonMobil is a global leader in carbon capture and sequestration, and captured approximately 6.9 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2015 for sequestration, the equivalent of eliminating the annual greenhouse gas emissions of more than 1 million passenger vehicles. Since 2000, ExxonMobil has spent nearly $7 billion on technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including on energy efficiency, cogeneration, flare reduction, carbon capture and sequestration, and research on lower-emission energy solutions.

    In case you missed it….that is $7,000,000,000.00 excursively for carbon capture.
    By comparison, your lobbying money worry is peanuts.

  21. Steve says:

    Sorry, exclusively (love spell check) and not just carbon capture, but a number of projects for cleaner energy.

  22. Bill says:

    Exxon is indeed a global company and has lots of governments and dictators to lobby. I doubt that all reported lobbying money was just spent on the U. S. Congress in that 10 year period but If it were, it would amount to 17 million per year and would be well short of the billion dollars estimated to have been raised and spent by Hillary Rodham Clinton in her unsuccessful 2016 Presidential campaign.

  23. Rincon says:

    And it’s nowhere near the $900 million spent by the Koch brothers. And of course, politicians universally enrich themselves when in office and shortly thereafter. Coincidentally, in OECD countries, only Chile has greater income inequality than us. Do you think these things are related? Nah, I’m sure money has no influence in this great country of ours.

    Steve asserts that Dark Money is fiction, despite the fact that the Koch brothers could break the author in half if she fabricated anything substantial. He also shows no evidence of any kind for his contention, except a vague statement that the author is a Liberal. Nothing exceptional of course. Just thought I’d mention it.

  24. Steve says:

    “Steve asserts that Dark Money is fiction”
    Not what I said…again.
    You made up a position, then you argue it as though it actually happened…..again.

    Then you make certain to spin something else…triple dog dare?

    You peeps are the ones who invented guilt by association!

  25. Rincon says:

    “Dark Money documents it in North Carolina, but of course, you don’t like what it says, so it must not be true.”
    Way to put up fake stuff then argue it as though it really happened.”

    Perhaps I stand corrected. Your statement can be taken two ways. Is the “fake stuff” the contents of Dark Money or that you don’t believe its contents to be true?

  26. Steve says:

    The fake stuff is the stuff you made up for me.

    The statement you made came with zero citation. So I searched your words and came up with nothing matching, leaving me with nothing to read and nothing to agree or dispute.

    So you created the position, argued it and attributed a position for me.

    Therefore. Fake stuff.

  27. Rincon says:

    “Stuff you made up for me”, the “statement” I made, my “words”, “the position”. Can you possibly be any more vague? I gave you two choices in my previous post. Pick one.

  28. Steve says:

    You made those words then attributed them to me, could you be more one sided?

  29. Rincon says:

    Steve: I said you were too vague, so you clarified by using the term, “those words”. Maybe you misunderstood, so here’s the dictionary definition of the word, vague: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/vague

    The emoluments clause will be ignored by Conservatives because it’s their ox being gored.

  30. Steve says:

    doesn’t spin it a bit. You posed the position then attributed it to me.

  31. deleted says:

    But Rincon….”our republic, etc….”

  32. Steve says:

    1,030 seats

    Patrick, you guys are losing.

  33. Rincon says:

    “The Position” You didn’t look up the definition of vague, did you?

  34. Steve says:

    Nothing vague at all.

    You made shit up and attributed it to me.

  35. Rincon says:

    Good night, Steve

  36. Steve says:

    Good day, Rincon…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s