Letters to the Editor
-
Joe, it's the already filed returns that are at issue
I am not aware of anyone who has asked to see the Clinton's 2007 tax returns. It's the returns that are already filed (2006, for example) that are at issue. This confusion has no doubt been encouraged by the Clinton campaign's coy statement that they'll be released around April 15 (the file date for 2007 returns).
Those earlier returns have (presumably) already been filed. Copies (presumably) exist somewhere...in a place that is (presumably) near one of those Xerox machines that Hillary likes to talk about.
Is there something there? I agree with you...probably not. But it's her reluctance to disclose that is more of an issue right now.
When Clinton tried to make plagiarism charges stick and was confronted by occasions when she herself borrowed liberally, her campaign waved it off, saying that it didn't matter because she wasn't running on her rhetoric. Well what is she running on? The argument that she's been vetted and Obama has not...that she's faced the Republican attack machine and he has not...that we know that there aren't any skeletons in her closet, and Obama's closets might not be as clean (despite the best efforts of her oppo research team).
Candidates who trumpet their skeleton free closets as selling points are obligated to make sure that all of their closets are opened for inspection. The tax returns are one such closet...potentially big enough to walk in.
-
As an Obama supporter, I must agree with Conason.
Obama cannot simultaneously require financial openness from the Clinton campaign while avoiding answering the questions that Chicago papers have for him. I understand one of them even published its telephone number and asked him to call. If he is not more forthright, he will look like he is stonewalling.
Obama's campaign is predicated upon perching himself on the high ground. He must not appear to be precarious there. If he wobbles, he could topple. Therefore, I call upon him -- out of love and admiration for him -- to come forth forthrightly within a fortnightly and hold a press conference on his campaign finance history, his personal real estate history, and Rezko.
He will look cute doing it. He always looks cute. He'd better not act cute or pout or he could lose his toehold on morality and the new politics he has crafted. If he gets too ugly about Clinton's tax returns, which I have no doubt that she will release as she said she would after April 15, he will look surly and glowering. He could begin to slide. Sliding is unseemly.
Wipe that frown off your face Obama baby! Show us that sunny countenance we so depend upon! Be open and be free!
Now folks, have ya'll finished your own tax returns?
-
Joe,
What you and the Clintons are doing to Obama now is equivalent to the worst of what the right-wing did to the Clintons in the 90s, which you so vigorously critiqued. Your hypocrisy reeks. Reeks.
-
WTF?
Joe Conason is the Director of the Nation Institute's Investigative Fund, which
... provides support for the research costs associated with investigative journalism ...[and].... emphasizes reporting on subjects often ignored by the mainstream media, and seeks to improve the scope and overall quality of investigative reporting in the independent press. http://www.nationinstitute.org/ifunds/
And yet, he writes here
... [N]obody has even suggested that Obama did anything illegal or unethical to advance his relationship with the indicted Chicago developer. Yet many questions are still unanswered about that relationship, which included well over a hundred thousand dollars in political contributions and simultaneous real estate purchases that concluded three years ago with the Obama family owning a South Side mansion.... Emphasis mine.
... a meme thoroughly debunked by his colleague Glenn Greenwald on this very site: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/03/05/rezko/index.html!!
Joan, fire him. Friggin incompetence...
-
?
@ chhabili
I am curious why you refer to McCain, Lieberman and Clinton as the unholy trinity? Since Clinton endorsed Lamont in 2006, I don't think Lieberman would consider himself to be part of any trinity with Clinton.
-
The Clintons have nothing to hide...
...and nothing in their history would suggest they do.
Certainly nothing regarding Johnny Chung and illicit campaign money from the PRC. Nor the coffee klatches and Wang Jun. Definitely not the Lincoln bedroom sellouts. Nor illegal donations to Bill's legal defense fund from Yah Lin "Charlie" Trie. Nor any donations provided through Maria Hsia from the Hsi Lai Temple. Nor illicit payments for seats on Ron Brown's "trade missions". Certainly nothing involving John Huang, James Riady and the Lippo Group. Nor illegal donations to HRC from Norman Hsu. And don't even bring up those unusually enormous returns in commodities trading. Nor cushy real estate deals with certain convicted felons. Nor eye-brow raising pardons of fugitives with business connections to the Clintons.
Really people, there's nothing to see here. You trust good ol' Joe Conason, dontcha?
Now, go back to your holes and forget about all this.
-
What's the Question?...
"...In fact, he bought the land from Rezko for 3X its appraised value...."
I think it was straight up, in terms of the actual value, hopefeathers...check out Factcheck.org http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/print_does_obama_have_a_real_estate_problem.html
1/6th of the land, for 1/6 of the entire purchase price [that, Rezko's wife incurred], whatever the appraised value may have been.
No one "got over."
As you and others have noted, Obama, about a year after he purchased the property, admitted it had been a "bone-headed" move while Rezko was reputed to be under investigation and quickly donated the amount of Rezko's campaign contributions to charity.
He's given tax returns, etc and the kitchen sink...if Hillary has nothing to hide she should cough up, at the very least, those returns no later than the first week to 10 days of April...in plenty of time for the contest for the big enchilada, Pennsylvania.
-
Even returns that are filed may not be 'done'
I experienced that this past year. I had to 'file' twice. First, with an estimated payment for Federal, and file for an extension on my returns because I just didn't have the info from my business partners. Then, when I finally did file for real, which was on practically the last possible day for the extension, I almost thought I was going to have to file an amended return later, which you can do within three years of filing your return, because it appeared that I still wasn't getting the right info out of our accountant. I never had to go through this before, but I was never a partner (even a junior one) in a company before. The IRS, who spoke to me several times as I was freaking out, is totally cool with this, as long as you are making the best of efforts to provide them with the info you have at the time.
I have no idea whether any candidates have had to file amended returns...but I can imagine the stink if they released returns and then released amended ones, which all citizens have the right to do, as long as it is within the 3 year requirement. Goodness, can you imagine it?