PDA

View Full Version : Flynt Offers $1 M Reward for Mitt's Tax Returns



DiabloViejo
09-08-2012, 06:48 PM
<span style='font-size: 17pt'>Hustler Magazine Publisher Offers $1 Million Reward For Romney Tax Returns</span>
September 7, 2012
By Wendy Gittleson
AddictingInfo.com (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/09/07/hustler-magazine-publisher-offers-1-million-reward-for-romney-tax-returns/)


http://www.addictinginfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/larry-flynt.jpg


To all hackers, disgruntled ex-employees, accountants and insiders…Hustler Magazine Publisher Larry Flynt is offering up to $1 million for Mitt Romney’s tax returns and other financial information, such as off-shore bank accounts.

According to AdWeek magazine, Flynt will be taking an ad out in Sunday’s Washington Post and Tuesday’s USA Today. Solid proof will be required. Here is an advanced copy of the ad:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Screen-Shot-2012-09-07-at-6.01.56-PM.png

The Republican party has a love/hate relationship with porn. Romney has stated that he will “vigorously” crack down on porn and have porn filters installed on all computers. He even signed an anti-porn pledge. The party platform has an anti-porn pledge to target “the scourge of hardcore pornography.”

At the same time as the platform was being read on the floor, convention attendees were giving a boost to the host city’s strip clubs.

One of porn’s most famous names is a big fan of Romney, or at least of the tax rate she thinks she’ll have under Romney. Porn star Jenna Jameson endorsed the Mormon candidate, saying “When you’re rich, you want a Republican in office.”

Flynt disagrees. A well-known advocate of free speech, Flynt said of Romney’s plan to crack down on porn, “Romney can have all the plans he wants to about prosecuting pornography, but that train has already left the station. I’m not saying that he isn’t serious about it, but it’s doubtful that he’d follow through if he’s in office because his advisers will tell him that he can’t win.”

<span style='font-size: 14pt'><span style="color: #000099">LOL, I expect the right wingers here to pounce on Flynt being a pornographer just as soon as they can tear themselves away from "Bukake Girls Gone Wild" and "Creampie Compilation #69". /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif </span></span>

LWW
09-08-2012, 07:42 PM
Nope ... but I will point out that you support a criminal act.

llotter
09-08-2012, 08:56 PM
I have copies of the returns but would never do business with a perv like Flint.

DiabloViejo
09-09-2012, 12:43 AM
Of course you do. Well all right then, thank you for your input. You can now go back to watching "Forrest Humps The Rear Admiral". /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

LWW
09-09-2012, 06:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DiabloViejo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Of course you do. Well all right then, thank you for your input. You can now go back to watching "Forrest Humps The Rear Admiral". /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif </div></div>
I take it that you have it DVD.

Gayle in MD
09-09-2012, 08:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have copies of the returns but would never do business with a perv like Flint.
</div></div>

LMAO!

What a liar. No wonder you vote for Republicans.

Soflasnapper
09-09-2012, 10:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nope ... but I will point out that you support a criminal act. </div></div>

Not really.

What criminal act was involved with Flynt's prior take down of Rep. Livingstone as Speaker of the House designate? None that I know of, at all.

This could be done without any criminal action by Flynt. He is not directly commissioning either burglary or hacking, merely offering 'fence' services, as it were.

LWW
09-09-2012, 01:34 PM
No matter how low the bar is set ... you always manage to slither beneath it.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In the United States, solicitation is the name of a crime, an inchoate offense that consists of a person offering money or induce another to commit a crime with the specific intent that the person solicited commit the crime.</div></div>

JUMPING BUTTERBALLS! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solicitation)

eg8r
09-09-2012, 02:18 PM
LOL, fitting for a leftie to resort to breaking the law. I would not expect anything less.

eg8r

eg8r
09-09-2012, 02:20 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not really.</div></div>Paying a hacker for illegally coming into possession of information through hacking is illegal. I would certainly expect to see you blindly defending a hacker from stealing info because the hacker said he did not hack to get the info. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

DiabloViejo
09-09-2012, 02:52 PM
All of your responses, (lloter, LWW, and you) skirt the obvious question: <u>Exactly what is it that Romney is hiding that could be so potentially harmful to his candidacy that he is determined to keep it hidden from the voters?</u> Hmmmmmmmmm....

Soflasnapper
09-09-2012, 06:47 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No matter how low the bar is set ... you always manage to slither beneath it.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In the United States, solicitation is the name of a crime, an inchoate offense that consists of a person offering money or induce another to commit a crime with the specific intent that the person solicited commit the crime.</div></div>

JUMPING BUTTERBALLS! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solicitation) </div></div>

I think he's instead encouraging a violation of privacy or confidentiality, which can be simply a horrible ethical lapse, a violation of professional ethics, and possibly cause a professional sanction, but not necessarily constituting a crime.

Such actions may constitute civil violations and prompt civil suits, both as to the perp himself, and also as to the end payer for tortious interference, with none of those being crimes.

Meaning, they would not result in jail time or fines from the state, even if they might cause legal fees to be paid out, and lost judgments to be paid out.

So if, for example, a clerk in an accounting firm had access to copies of Romney's tax file, and used that access to make copies and then release them, I do not think that is a crime. It is a firing offense for that clerk, of course, but probably not even an actionable civil offense for Romney against the clerk, who would now have $1 million dollars.

Typically to get such a thing to rise to the level of a crime you need a black back job, some hacking, or reaching up into the IRS and turning some personnel there, or interfering with the US mail service. Those are crimes. Using access improperly generally wouldn't be, I think.

If you are correct, Flynt is already a criminal, going back to the $1 million dollar reward for GOP sexual activity evidence, and again right now. Is anyone with legal training calling for him to be charged with a crime, making that argument?

Gayle in MD
09-10-2012, 03:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Typically to get such a thing to rise to the level of a crime you need a black back job, some hacking, or reaching up into the IRS and turning some personnel there, or interfering with the US mail service. Those are crimes. Using access improperly generally wouldn't be, I think.

If you are correct, Flynt is already a criminal, going back to the $1 million dollar reward for GOP sexual activity evidence, and again right now. </div></div>


I'd say Flynt was very successful the last time he offered a reward for exposing Republican gross hypocricy!

Go Larry! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Soflasnapper
09-10-2012, 08:31 AM
I'd say if the only way his reward could be earned is by a crime, maybe it could be a crime to offer it.

However, if there is a way he could get his information with no crime being involved, that's an affirmative defense against that charge.

In the case of Livingstone, I think his transvestite* sado-masochist bondage and discipline dominatrix provided the proof, with pictures. Sure, that violated his privacy and his secret professional engagement, but it wasn't likely any crime.

And for some reason, Mr. Livingstone was not in a mood to prosecute whatever civil claim he may have had against her/him*.

*To be fair, his SM/BD dominatrix may have been an actual woman and not a transvestite. My memory may have added in that detail, falsely.

Soflasnapper
09-10-2012, 08:56 AM
Here's an argument pointing out that the RECEIPT of this material might be a crime:

(Updated: @ JohnWilson on Twitter questioned whether if Flynt received the returns – and they were stolen – that might be a crime. The receipt of stolen property is, in fact, a federal crime under 18 USC §2315 assuming that the property is considered interstate commerce, has a value of $5,000 or more and the recipient knows it to be stolen. The punishment could be a fine and/or prison.)

Define stolen, of course.

Is a COPY of something considered STOLEN, exactly?

Are Romney's tax returns valued in excess of $5k? Interesting question. Not intrinsically, of course. Considering their impact on his presidential bid, one might say they are priceless. Priceless = zero value (?), or priceless &gt; $5k?

eg8r
09-10-2012, 09:44 AM
No one knows, not even you. Since there is no law for him to turn it over why aren't you asking the IRS to dive into it? At least that would be legal. Nope, what happens is that you skirt the reality which is that you want to obtain your info illegally.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
09-10-2012, 10:00 AM
Calling out the IRS dogs on Romney would be the height of politicizing that agency, and would be, and should be, decried by all as attempted political meddling.

Whatever look-see they could give could not be accomplished in full before the election, and all it would do is to serve as a smear, that Romney 'is under investigation,' in a grossly unfair insinuation from that look (which might reveal nothing), and which would be subject to appeal, even if they could get to an answer in time.

LWW
09-10-2012, 10:25 AM
You are aware that there are numeros instances of the feds harrassing people on Obama's enemy list ... as well as the auto bailout going after enemies of the demokrook party.

Don't plead ignorance because we both know that not only do you know this, but that you have condoned it.

eg8r
09-10-2012, 11:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Calling out the IRS dogs on Romney would be the height of politicizing that agency, and would be, and should be, decried by all as attempted political meddling. </div></div>This is all any of it really is in the first place.

So are you just talking to talk or are you saying screw the legal route it just is not as economical as offering a bounty to hackers? Or are you saying something totally different?

eg8r

LWW
09-10-2012, 01:20 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Calling out the IRS dogs on Romney would be the height of politicizing that agency, and would be, and should be, decried by all as attempted political meddling. </div></div>This is all any of it really is in the first place.

So are you just talking to talk or are you saying screw the legal route it just is not as economical as offering a bounty to hackers? Or are you saying something totally different?

eg8r </div></div>

Sadly, he is saying whatever he is told to say.

Soflasnapper
09-10-2012, 04:45 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are aware that there are numeros instances of the feds harrassing people on Obama's enemy list ... as well as the auto bailout going after enemies of the demokrook party.

Don't plead ignorance because we both know that not only do you know this, but that you have condoned it. </div></div>

False, and you know it, and I have not condoned it-- I've denied it. If you think this is something you remember, look into having your memory checked.