PDA

View Full Version : Romney hiding his felony vote fraud?



Soflasnapper
07-07-2012, 01:05 PM
Many people presume the financial details of Romney's overseas financial holdings will trouble the average voters, and that is the reason why he is hiding all of that.

Here's another, more mundane possibility, which has the benefit of evidence behind it instead of speculating about unknown details of the finances. (Although how an IRA got to over $100 million dollars is quite a question, given the low annual limits to contributions to an IRA.)

Here (http://www.veteransnewsnow.com/2012/07/07/mitt-romney-committed-voter-fraud-looks-likely/)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Mitt Romney Committed Voter Fraud—Looks Likely

Brad Friedman first broke this story in June 2011.

Far be it for me to call TPM’s Josh Marshall “stupid”, though it does make for a more eye-catching headline. It also happens to be a fact, as I see it, that Romney’s refusal to release his tax returns from any year prior to 2010, and especially his local state return from 2010, is about hiding evidence of a felony crime, as much or likely more than it is about hiding embarrassing details of off-shore bank accounts in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, Switzerland, etc.

By Brad Friedman



Josh argued yesterday that the latter is the reason for the presumptive GOP nominee’s continuing refusal to publicly disclose those tax returns. It’s almost certainly a part of the campaign’s calculations and, as he posits convincingly in his blog item headlined “Kryptonite”, hard visual confirmation of Romney’s foreign tax shelters would be difficult to shake off with explanations to Mr. and Mrs. America.

But the use of legal off-shore tax shelters can be massaged through the “conservative” “messaging” machine with a legitimate-sounding case that avoidance of federal taxes is somehow a patriotic “conservative” duty and/or otherwise yet another example of Romney’s keen business insight and smart, fully legal fiscal discipline which every American should someday aspire to.

What cannot be so easily brushed off or propagandized away — not without completely undermining the current culmination of the GOP’s nearly-decade long effort in creating the imaginary notion of massive Democratic “voter fraud” which must be rectified immediately with polling place Photo ID restrictions (actually little more than the GOP’s attempt to suppress the legitimate Democratic-leaning vote while preventing almost no existing voter fraud) — is the likelihood that those tax returns would reveal indisputable evidence that this year’s GOP standard-bearer is an actual voter fraud felon himself … .

To date, there has been no legitimate explanation for Mitt Romney having cast a vote in the January 2010 Special Election for the U.S. Senate between Scott Brown and Martha Coakley. At the time of his vote (which he has admitted doing) he owned no house in MA, and yet he was registered to vote from the address of his son’s unfinished basement in Belmont, MA.

While Romney owned houses in both CA (purchased in May of 2008 for $12.5m) and NH (April of 2009 for $3.5m) at the time, it wouldn’t be until July of 2010 — a full six months after the Special Election to replace the late Sen. Ted Kennedy — that the state’s former Governor would once again own a house there, after purchasing an $895,000 townhouse in Belmont.

The state’s requirements for residency for the purposes of voting are quite clear in MA. Ones residence must be “where a person dwells and which is the center of his domestic, social, and civil life,” according to state law. Yet, the evidence demonstrating that Romney ran afoul of those requirements in order to vote in that election are similarly clear, at least as fairly meticulously compiled by a former Republican Presidential candidate last year.

Romney’s 2010 state tax return, which he still refuses to release, even though he finally released his federal return from that same year, likely shows that he did not pay state income tax in MA, but rather declared himself to be a NH resident for its more friendly tax purposes.

Such a declaration, if revealed via his 2010 state tax return, would underscore the apparent fact that Mitt Romney himself is actually a voter fraud felon.

I can think of no reasonable response to that fact if it were to finally be revealed without ambivalence on official tax returns — not while the GOP has so many years and so much invested in their voter suppression “ferreting out ‘voter fraud’!” canard this year.

Romney’s going to have to deal with the off-shore investment thing whether the tax returns are released or not. He’s already being forced to do so. And, to some extent, his base even likes that part of him, perversely or not. On the other hand, to date, he’s largely been able to keep the voter fraud thing — about which the Pavlovian GOP base has been well-trained over the last ten years to yelp uncritically — far below the radar. That all changes if he releases his taxes and they show what it seems likely they will.

No amount of “conservative” “messaging” will be able to hide the fact that the party itself has nominated someone who, himself, committed voter fraud in a high-profile federal election just two years ago, even as the party is itself in courtrooms across the nation trying to defend their case that access to the polling place must be tightened up in order to keep those ne’er-do-well zombie ACORN “Democrat” thieves from stealing the election yet again by “diluting” the votes of legal American voters with their rampant voter fraud.

And it is that point, even more than embarrassment over off-shore tax havens, as Josh otherwise-convincingly asserts, which is likely the real “Kryptonite” right now to the GOP, and likely driving Romney’s untenable position of keeping years of tax returns a secret even as he runs for the highest office in the land.</div></div>

LWW
07-07-2012, 05:19 PM
Coming from someone who obediently denies the overwhelming evidence of massive demokrook election fraud ... watching you buy into this is quite amusing.

That being said ... if he did the crime he should do the time.

Soflasnapper
07-07-2012, 06:39 PM
Before or after he takes office, if he does?

Actually, this kind of crime is evidently generally winked at, as all kinds of these politicians 'live' in places (for election purposes) where they don't reside in any meaningful way.

Been going on forever. Dick Lugar just recently was found to be dodging about where he lived (although that doesn't make it a felony crime, unless he falsely claimed residence to wrongly vote somewhere). GHW Bush famously 'lived' at a hotel in Houston, he claimed.

But of interest here, Romney's only tax return made public was his federal tax return of 2010. Not his Massachusetts' state tax return. The possible smoking gun, as he may have claimed no residence in MA that year he voted there, to avoid paying state income taxes.

LWW
07-07-2012, 07:01 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The possible smoking gun, as he may have claimed no residence in MA that year he voted there, to avoid paying state income taxes. </div></div>

IYHO should this disqualify him for federal office?

Soflasnapper
07-08-2012, 12:29 AM
I don't see how he could execute the office from federal prison, if he's found guilty of a federal felony.

That would be up to the voters, I suppose. I doubt they'd find it plausible, either.

It wasn't long ago that the Indiana SecState Charlie White ran afoul of this same thing, and he was convicted and sentenced as I recall.

The way it would work in reality and by common practice is that this would be shrugged off, alibied away, and no charges would be brought. Then it would simply be a political matter as to whether it is found disqualifying, if believed.

Without formal charges and a conviction at trial, I predict most GOPrs would hold their noses still tighter and vote for him, even in the face of compelling evidence.


Coming from someone who obediently denies the overwhelming evidence of massive demokrook election fraud ... watching you buy into this is quite amusing.

Yes, I do, as I think the evidence is overwhelming that it is not taking place, as opposed to the convincing evidence that through voter caging, purges, and manipulation of electronic voting devices, there has been massive fraud that put the loser of the vote in high office.

I'm not even sure that if Romney voted only once, it's much of a crime, still less a felony, in my mind. But if that's the law on the books, and we KNOW a) he voted for Scott Brown in MA when he b) had left the state and did not reside there, then if c) proves true, that on his MA state tax return he stated he was not a resident, then his vote was a felony violation of election law.

Qtec
07-08-2012, 02:06 AM
Its funny.

The 'fanatic' voter fraud guy is now defending the guy accused of voter fraud!

Imagine if it was Obama! He would be doing his nut! This would be absolute proof that Obama is a criminal, a fraud, a felon, etc etc.

Q /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

LWW
07-08-2012, 03:52 AM
Why don't you just answer the question ... your ability to ad is well known, and your hstory of long winded non answers duly noted.

LWW
07-08-2012, 03:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Its funny.

The 'fanatic' voter fraud guy is now defending the guy accused of voter fraud!

Imagine if it was Obama! He would be doing his nut! This would be absolute proof that Obama is a criminal, a fraud, a felon, etc etc.

Q /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif </div></div>

Can you quote where I did that?

What's that?

You are in reality an Alinskyiistvtroll demanding that people defend positions they ave never taken, and only exist in your imaginary universe of moonbattery?

But ... I already knew that, hence I won't play our childish game. That being sid, I'm sure your little bot friends will convince you that youhave achieved yet another victory in the theater of your own mind.

And, yes, I do realize tat this is all well over your head.

Qtec
07-08-2012, 04:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Why don't you just answer the question .</div></div>

He did. It went over your head.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">IYHO should this disqualify him for federal office? </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I don't see how he could execute the office from federal prison, if he's found guilty of a federal felony.</div></div>




<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">watching you buy into this is quite amusing. </div></div>

You have already decided that this is bogus! You don't believe it!

Based on what?


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The 'fanatic' voter fraud guy is now defending the guy accused of voter fraud! </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Can you quote where I did that?</div></div>


Just did.

Q

Soflasnapper
07-08-2012, 11:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why don't you just answer the question ... your ability to ad is well known, and your hstory of long winded non answers duly noted. </div></div>

Sure, then.

Yes, someone who committed a felony in recent years should be disqualified from being the president. (Typically he would lose his right to even vote. How could someone like that properly take the office?)

The main issue would be the proof. If not charged and tried and convicted, it is more arguable the other way, of course.

His partisans could chose to disbelieve even strong evidence that amounts to proof, should the charge not be brought.

I know of no legal bar for a felon to take the high office, but I think the American people just wouldn't allow it. It's different from the people of Harlem returning Adam Clayton Powell, or the people of DC returning Marion Barry, to their prior offices after convictions. Mayor and US Rep are not the high office that the presidency is, nor are they subject to only the votes of a small loyal cadre.

LWW
07-09-2012, 03:37 AM
And I agree that if he did this it should disqualify him.

Now, next up, I don't recall you ... orbany of your cabalists ... being in the least bit upset over Kerry's tax dodge or any of the many felony tax dodger in the current regime?

Gayle in MD
07-09-2012, 09:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Op-Ed Columnist
Mitt’s Gray Areas
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Once upon a time a rich man named Romney ran for president. He could claim, with considerable justice, that his wealth was well-earned, that he had in fact done a lot to create good jobs for American workers. Nonetheless, the public understandably wanted to know both how he had grown so rich and what he had done with his wealth; he obliged by releasing extensive information about his financial history.


But that was 44 years ago. And the contrast between George Romney and his son Mitt — a contrast both in their business careers and in their willingness to come clean about their financial affairs — dramatically illustrates how America has changed.

Right now there’s a lot of buzz about an investigative report in the magazine Vanity Fair highlighting the “gray areas” in the younger Romney’s finances. More about that in a minute. First, however, let’s talk about what it meant to get rich in George Romney’s America, and how it compares with the situation today.

What did George Romney do for a living? The answer was straightforward: he ran an auto company, American Motors. And he ran it very well indeed: at a time when the Big Three were still fixated on big cars and ignoring the rising tide of imports, Romney shifted to a highly successful focus on compacts that restored the company’s fortunes, not to mention that it saved the jobs of many American workers.

It also made him personally rich. We know this because during his run for president, he released not one, not two, but 12 years’ worth of tax returns, explaining that any one year might just be a fluke. From those returns we learn that in his best year, 1960, he made more than $660,000 — the equivalent, adjusted for inflation, of around $5 million today.

Those returns also reveal that he paid a lot of taxes — 36 percent of his income in 1960, 37 percent over the whole period. This was in part because, as one report at the time put it, he “seldom took advantage of loopholes to escape his tax obligations.” But it was also because taxes on the rich were much higher in the ’50s and ’60s than they are now. In fact, once you include the indirect effects of taxes on corporate profits, taxes on the very rich were about twice current levels.





Now fast-forward to Romney the Younger, who made even more money during his business career at Bain Capital. Unlike his father, however, Mr. Romney didn’t get rich by producing things people wanted to buy; he made his fortune through financial engineering that seems in many cases to have left workers worse off, and in some cases driven companies into bankruptcy.

And there’s another contrast: George Romney was open and forthcoming about what he did with his wealth, but Mitt Romney has largely kept his finances secret. He did, grudgingly, release one year’s tax return plus an estimate for the next year, showing that he paid a startlingly low tax rate. But as the Vanity Fair report points out, we’re still very much in the dark about his investments, some of which seem very mysterious.

Put it this way: Has there ever before been a major presidential candidate who had a multimillion-dollar Swiss bank account, plus tens of millions invested in the Cayman Islands, famed as a tax haven?

And then there’s his Individual Retirement Account. I.R.A.’s are supposed to be a tax-advantaged vehicle for middle-class savers, with annual contributions limited to a few thousand dollars a year. Yet somehow Mr. Romney ended up with an account worth between $20 million and $101 million.

There are legitimate ways that could have happened, just as there are potentially legitimate reasons for parking large sums of money in overseas tax havens. But we don’t know which if any of those legitimate reasons apply in Mr. Romney’s case — because he has refused to release any details about his finances. This refusal to come clean suggests that he and his advisers believe that voters would be less likely to support him if they knew the truth about his investments.

And that is precisely why voters have a right to know that truth. Elections are, after all, in part about the perceived character of the candidates — and what a man does with his money is surely a major clue to his character.

One more thing: To the extent that Mr. Romney has a coherent policy agenda, it involves cutting tax rates on the very rich — which are already, as I said, down by about half since his father’s time. Surely a man advocating such policies has a special obligation to level with voters about the extent to which he would personally benefit from the policies he advocates.

Yet obviously that’s something Mr. Romney doesn’t want to do. And unless he does reveal the truth about his investments, we can only assume that he’s hiding something seriously damaging.



</div></div>

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/09/opinion/krugman-mitts-gray-areas.html?_r=4&ref=opinion



<span style="color: #990000"> If he was on the up and up, he wouldn't be hding his financials, and refusing to answer questions.

He's just another greedy crook, without any real patriotism.

G. </span>

Soflasnapper
07-09-2012, 10:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And I agree that if he did this it should disqualify him.

Now, next up, I don't recall you ... orbany of your cabalists ... being in the least bit upset over Kerry's tax dodge or any of the many felony tax dodger in the current regime? </div></div>

Kerry's tax minimization wasn't illegal, he wasn't running for anything let alone the presidency, and he bowed to pressure on the optics and paid that $500k sales tax he didn't need to.

Nor are there other felony tax evaders. Closest to that would be Geithner, and it was handled appropriately as a civil and penalty matter, not a felony crime.

And like Kerry, Geithner was not running for president at the time of the offense.