The ‘Missing Evidence’ In Romney’s Tax Records

[ProSense]

The ‘Missing Evidence’ In Romney’s Tax Records

Joe Conason

Harry Reid has provoked outrage among liberals as well as conservatives, who seem to believe he has violated propriety by repeating gossip about Mitt Romney’s taxes....Evidently the chief complaint against Reid — aside from aggressiveness unbecoming a Democrat — is that he cited “an extremely credible source” who he has so far declined to name...Despite all this righteous tut-tutting among the great and the good, in newspapers and magazines as well as on television, Reid’s critics simply have no way of knowing whether he is telling the truth or not. From the beginning, Reid himself admitted forthrightly that he has no way of being absolutely certain whether what he was told is factual or not, although he believes the person who said it was being truthful.

Many of Reid’s critics work for news outlets that rely on unnamed sources every day, of course, publishing assertions that range from the mundane to the outlandish....Indeed, several of the news outlets now barking at Reid have suffered their own episodes of scandalous embarrassment due to the exposure of invented sources and quotes (see Jayson Blair, Stephen Glass, etc. etc. etc.) . Yet they nevertheless continue to publish quotes from such unnamed individuals. After all, where else would Reid have learned that this is acceptable conduct?

<...>

There is a legal doctrine that applies to Romney’s current behavior, as Indiana attorney John Sullivan points out – and it doesn’t place the burden of proof on Reid:

At law, if a person in control of evidence refuses to produce the evidence, then the jury is instructed that there is a presumption that the evidence would be against the party failing to produce. It is called the “Missing Evidence” instruction.

The missing evidence is in Romney’s grasp, yet he insists that he will never produce it. Does anyone need instruction from a judge to make the correct inference?

http://www.nationalmemo.com/the-missing-evidence-in-romneys-tax-records/

Mitt is trapped.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021073742

[font color="black" size="12" face="arial"]What is Mitt hiding?[/font]

[malaise]

1. Is this the same media that went along for the ride with the birthers?

Fugg em all

[Laurian]

2. And the Iraq War.

Yep, fuck 'em......

Their journalistic ethics have been gone for a long time..

[Coyotl]

13. I'm not sure "went along" is the right wording here. How much media does Mitt own, for starters

This is the same media owned by "the birthers" or "the racists" or "the corporatists", or "the GOP" as they used to be called.

[bobburgster]

3. you have to wonder.....

you have to wonder why the media would get worked up about the use of unnamed sources. Republicans, well that's to be expected.

[ProSense]

4. It's also

"you have to wonder.....you have to wonder why the media would get worked up about the use of unnamed sources."

...bizarre that they're pretending this is about Reid, not Romney's refusal to release his tax returns.

[vkkv]

5. Perhaps a mass citizens arrest of Romney for tax evasion is needed.

Time for a massive citizens arrest of Romney for tax evasion.

[MissMarple]

6. How massive should the citizens be?

The visual image in my head is breathtaking.

[Bill USA]

7. recommended!

[MannyGoldstein]

8. Awesome catch!!! nt

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

9. Photo of Mitt "Kanamitt" Romney releasing his tax returns

appearing as his true self from the planet Kolob. What's hidden in his tax returns? They're a cookbook!

[SunSeeker]

12. They're definitely cooked. nt

[NightWatcher]

10. he'll release the records...after the gop convention

and they'll show all kinds of dodges from prosecution with the UBS, donations to groups like Planned Parenthood (back when he was trying to impress moderates in Mass), and how much money he really has in domestic accounts- leaving people to speculate he's still hiding offshore to avoid paying taxes.

it'll all come out...after he's been nominated

[progressivebydesign]

11. Yes! The debate should NOt be about whether the source told the truth.. but about the truth itself.

That's what Romney's advisors are banking on, that they can degrade the source... without releasing the returns.

Mitt has a habit of this. From the Gov. emails/hard drives, that he said were taken and erased so that no one could use them against him politically. And yet, people support that guy? And the olympics records? gone to a sealed location at a Unversity, DONATED so no one could use it against him politically.

I think the most disturbing thing about this, beyond the taxes, is that we're seeing the coverup of a person that could be the most ruthless, most secretive and deceptive, candide in history. I know that everyone who runs, wants to have that job.. but Romney seems to have spent his entire adult life ORCHESTRATING all of this. From his early days of deleting information, lying, and absolutely egregious attacks on anyone who runs against him.

Bush was a nincompoop. He destroyed so much, but he was not as ruthless and power-hungry as Romney. Perhaps only Nixon could match or even get close to Romney's lack of morals and authenticity. But I still think Romney is worse. A candidate that is changing by the minute, who outwardly lies as easily as breathing, who devastates anyone who runs against him, and who has burned bridges and files in his wake, should never never be President. I know that people poo poo the whole White Horse thing (unless it's Glenn Beck,) but sometimes.. I wonder if this is part of something larger.

ETA: It also struck me the other day that we never seen photos of Romney with friends. No one seems to really like that guy at all. Even his surrogates that want either a VP slot, or some slot in his cabinet, or money from military contracts, NEVER say anything GOOD about him...

[AlbertCat]

14. He gave 'em to McCain....

.... so what's the problem?

McCain's people could put this to rest!!!!

[Poiuyt]

16. Personally, I think McCain (or his people) was the source

[Kingofalldems]

15. Conason does not play with republicans

He knows them for what they are.

[kentuck]

17. There it is !!

"There is a legal doctrine that applies to Romney’s current behavior, as Indiana attorney John Sullivan points out – and it doesn’t place the burden of proof on Reid:

At law, if a person in control of evidence refuses to produce the evidence, then the jury is instructed that there is a presumption that the evidence would be against the party failing to produce. It is called the “Missing Evidence” instruction.

The missing evidence is in Romney’s grasp, yet he insists that he will never produce it. Does anyone need instruction from a judge to make the correct inference?"

=======

Good job ProSense!

[kentuck]

19. The link to Sullivan's article:

http://www.juancole.com/2012/08/romney-and-the-missing-evidence-instruction-sullivan.html

<snip>
John Sullivan writes in a guest column for Informed Comment:

A Cabinet nominee or a Supreme Court nominee produces decades of tax returns to the Senate for confirmation. Romney should meet that criteria.

The deduction for the horse included over $2,000 in medical expenses. Medical expenses are not deductible for taxpayers unless they exceed 7.5% of adjusted gross income. In Romney’s world, horses are more valuable than people.

Obviously, Romney will not produce his tax returns because he knows what’s in them is more damaging that the static he will take for not releasing them. At law, if a person is control of evidence refuses to produce the evidence, then the jury is instructed that there is a presumption that the evidence would be against the party failing to produce. It is called the “Missing Evidence” instruction.

[Motown_Johnny]

18. Kicking

[klook]

20. Romney is now a defendant in the court of public opinion

who refuses to produce the easily obtainable evidence that would exonerate him. Therefore the only reasonable vote is "Guilty."

Bingo!

[JayhawkSD]

21. Absolutely, we have no fifth amendment

If a person takes the fifth amendment, the jury should be instructed to assume guilt.

If the defendent does not testify in the trial, the jury should be instructed to assume guilt.

I would not piss on Mitt Romney if his hair was on fire, would not vote for him if he was running against Adolph Hitler, but are we going to discard our constitution in its entirety?