HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » why don't they indict Rom...

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 05:02 PM

why don't they indict Romney?

I mean, they have all the docs needed. His tax returns are held by the IRS. The FEC and SEC have the other docs needed...don't they? It would seem a sure-fire way to submarine the campaign...and it would show the American people that he IS the cheat and dodge that he seems to be...

sP

68 replies, 4943 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 68 replies Author Time Post
Reply why don't they indict Romney? (Original post)
ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2012 OP
Ruby the Liberal Jul 2012 #1
ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2012 #2
Ruby the Liberal Jul 2012 #12
AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2012 #47
Voice for Peace Jul 2012 #55
AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2012 #57
Xyzse Jul 2012 #3
Comrade_McKenzie Jul 2012 #4
Jamaal510 Jul 2012 #14
Comrade_McKenzie Jul 2012 #49
Marcia Brady Jul 2012 #64
DCKit Jul 2012 #5
JoePhilly Jul 2012 #6
ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2012 #7
JoePhilly Jul 2012 #9
ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2012 #11
KharmaTrain Jul 2012 #51
Bok_Tukalo Jul 2012 #8
ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2012 #10
Iggy Jul 2012 #13
ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2012 #15
Iggy Jul 2012 #45
AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2012 #58
DrDan Jul 2012 #16
ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2012 #18
DrDan Jul 2012 #20
ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2012 #21
DrDan Jul 2012 #22
ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2012 #23
DrDan Jul 2012 #24
ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2012 #26
DrDan Jul 2012 #29
ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2012 #31
DrDan Jul 2012 #34
ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2012 #36
DrDan Jul 2012 #38
ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2012 #41
DrDan Jul 2012 #27
ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2012 #33
DrDan Jul 2012 #37
ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2012 #42
DrDan Jul 2012 #44
oldhippydude Jul 2012 #50
AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2012 #60
DrDan Jul 2012 #61
Iggy Jul 2012 #46
DrDan Jul 2012 #48
KurtNYC Jul 2012 #17
ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2012 #19
AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2012 #32
KurtNYC Jul 2012 #54
AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2012 #56
Marcia Brady Jul 2012 #25
ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2012 #30
Marcia Brady Jul 2012 #52
dkf Jul 2012 #63
uponit7771 Jul 2012 #40
Marcia Brady Jul 2012 #53
slackmaster Jul 2012 #59
Marcia Brady Jul 2012 #62
slackmaster Jul 2012 #65
Enrique Jul 2012 #28
jberryhill Jul 2012 #35
ProdigalJunkMail Jul 2012 #39
AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2012 #43
Iggy Jul 2012 #67
jeff47 Jul 2012 #66
just1voice Jul 2012 #68

Response to ProdigalJunkMail (Original post)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 05:04 PM

1. Because it would submarine the campaign.

They can't do this in the runup to an election. There would be incredible blowback. Especially since this has been known since he filed to run in 2011.

Now, after the election...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ruby the Liberal (Reply #1)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 05:06 PM

2. THAT would generate serious blowback IF he wins

to try and bring charges at that point would seriously damage Democratic candidates moving forward. If they've got him on these things, it is actually their JOB to indict him...isn't it? Should a campaign get in the way of enforcing the law?

sP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProdigalJunkMail (Reply #2)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 05:26 PM

12. Trust me - I feel your frustration on this.

If it were Joe Local running for mayor of Nowheresville, he would be flambe'd over it.

Just another one of those 'look the other way' deals when it comes to the rich and connected in this country. It wouldn't be 'expedient' at this point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProdigalJunkMail (Reply #2)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 06:55 PM

47. Just as there are those who will excuse Holder when he disregards publicly known evidence and will

 

not prosecute Rmoney, there are those who will excuse Holder when he disregards the LIBOR evidence and does not prosecute those super-rich criminals involved with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #47)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 07:06 PM

55. I may be one of the few here who still have some faith in Holder

 

and maybe I'll be proven wrong.. but I believe there is a great
deal more investigating going on behind the scenes in the Justice
Dept than we know.

I imagine there is someone who is looking seriously into
the question of SEC or other felony by Romney. And other
crimes all of us would love to see prosecuted. Obama is a
good man and I believe he will do all he can with the time
he's given to stand up for truth and integrity.

I can't debate re: Holder because I am not well enough
informed.. just expressing a hopeful point of view that I
can't shake, no matter how many cranky posts I read.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Voice for Peace (Reply #55)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 07:16 PM

57. Yep, you might be the one.

 

Holder, in addition to his recent inactivity while letting the statute of limitations run on felonies involving super-rich criminals, personally helped get a presidential pardon for the billionaire fugitive financier Marc Rich when he was working for the Clinton Administration.

Please see, e.g., Eric Holder "More Deeply Involved" In Rich Pardon Than Supporters Acknowledge
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/01/nyt-holder-more-deeply-in_n_147605.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ruby the Liberal (Reply #1)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 05:07 PM

3. It wouldn't stop them...

But, I get your point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProdigalJunkMail (Original post)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 05:07 PM

4. I guess you get immunity for running for President. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Reply #4)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 05:33 PM

14. Correction: You get immunity if you are a Ruhpublican.

Edwards had to drop out of a presidential race over a personal affair, while Rob-me is still close behind in polls despite outsourcing jobs and dodging taxes. Bush 2 was a draft-dodger, yet was able to attack Kerry's military record and win in '04. Obama still gets harassed constantly about his birth certificate despite being born in Hawaii, yet John McMuffin never got asked for one despite being born in the Panama Canal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamaal510 (Reply #14)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 06:59 PM

49. Too true, too true. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamaal510 (Reply #14)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 08:07 PM

64. I thought Edwards dropped out of the race

because he'd had several primary/caucus losses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProdigalJunkMail (Original post)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 05:08 PM

5. "The devil you know...." nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProdigalJunkMail (Original post)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 05:10 PM

6. Let him twist in the wind.

Hitchcock found that one's imagination was far more powerful than anything he could show.

In Jaws, having the shark remain as an unseen terror engaged one's imagination, and fear.

Let people think about what Mitt's up to, let their imaginations conjure up what he's hiding.

Any indictment would take YEARS to complete ...

Let Mitt twist in the wind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #6)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 05:12 PM

7. that's a good point

hadn't thought of it that way...leave the details out there for people to 'fill in' on their own...

I do disagree, however, that it would take years to indict. the facts seem pretty straightforward...

sP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProdigalJunkMail (Reply #7)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 05:15 PM

9. Sorry, not years to indict ... years to prosecute.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #9)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 05:17 PM

11. eh...perhaps. maybe we would get lucky

and see a plea deal play out if the evidence is as damning as I have read.

sP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #6)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 07:01 PM

51. And Twist And Twist...Put More ? Out There...

Bain is part one. We're about to see a similar demolition about Willard's role in the Olympics...pushing his business contacts for his personal profit.

It's building a narrative that by this fall will stick like glue to most Americans of Willard being a sleezy liar and tax cheat. Richie Rich/Thurston Howell on a jet ski with a dog on the roof.

It's classic political framing that will be studied by political campaigns for generations. Firstly, for the genius of Team Obama to pile it on and, more importantly, the ineptness of Rmoney who kept sticking glass jaws out there to get knocked around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProdigalJunkMail (Original post)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 05:13 PM

8. Because you don't indict the opposition to a sitting president in an election year

... unless there is at least one dead body, half a pound of blow, and two sodomized goats involved.


Seriously, indict Romney? Good Lord. This is America, for Christ's sake; not Russia or some other shit hole that pretends to be a democracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bok_Tukalo (Reply #8)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 05:16 PM

10. ok to the first line...

but the part about Russia...I am not sure you are kidding or not. You indict criminals regardless of who they are or the station they hold (or aspire to hold). THAT is what it means to be a country ruled by law...not men.

sP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProdigalJunkMail (Original post)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 05:29 PM

13. Helloooooo?

 

highly UNlikely willard will get into any trouble with any of his chicanery.

keep in mind it took the SEC twenty years to catch Ponzi scammer bernie madoff.

Weak, very weak.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iggy (Reply #13)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 05:35 PM

15. why is it weak?

it is not like he was running some hidden scam somewhere? the IRS, FEC and SEC have his name on dated docs that should show he has committed a felony. hell, the FEC went after Edwards pretty damned quick...and while they lost they sure fucked up his record.

and, if you cannot indict him then you can't say he committed a felony...so why bother with the verbiage if you're just going to let it hang out there?

sP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProdigalJunkMail (Reply #15)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 06:54 PM

45. Huh? What Are

 

you talking about? a whistleblower blew the lid OFF the madoff scam _years_ before the
SEC bothered to truly investigate and bust him.

the SEC went out of their way to enable madoff. that is weak, very weak.

based on what I'm seeing lately-- particularly the fact the five year statute of limitations is about to
run out at the feeble SEC-- related to busting the criminals responsible for the Crash-- I'm not sure
why I should have much confidence they are going to go after Rmoney.

if you want to believe this fantasy, fine, but don't expect me to drink the Kool-Aid with you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iggy (Reply #45)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 07:22 PM

58. x2 -- Exactly.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProdigalJunkMail (Original post)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 05:41 PM

16. so you are in favor of the Obama campaign using the IRS and other federal agencies to indict Romney

in order to "submarine the campaign".

Let's get real. Good thing adults are in charge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrDan (Reply #16)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 06:16 PM

18. I'm in favor of those agencies doing their job

because until they are...the grown-ups aren't in charge.

get real yourself.

sP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProdigalJunkMail (Reply #18)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 06:21 PM

20. "It would seem a sure-fire way to submarine the campaign"

is that doing their job?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrDan (Reply #20)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 06:23 PM

21. doing their job is enforcing the law

if that happens to submarine his campaign, then so be it. are you saying that because he is running he is immune from prosecution?

sP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProdigalJunkMail (Reply #21)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 06:24 PM

22. have you given any thought to how this would play out in the media?

geez louise . . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrDan (Reply #22)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 06:26 PM

23. the media should have no bearing on it

if they have clear-cut evidence that he committed a felony he should be brought up on charges...otherwise it is just politics.

sP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProdigalJunkMail (Reply #23)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 06:27 PM

24. and that is EXACTLY what you are proposing

using federal agencies to "submarine a campaign"

anyway - good darned thing it will not happen . . . because ADULTS are in charge

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrDan (Reply #24)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 06:30 PM

26. no i am not...

i am suggesting that if two or three federal agencies have been given evidence that Romney committed felonies then THEY should do THEIR jobs and seek prosecution. not the campaign. but here's the rub...if the campaign keeps crowing that he MIGHT have committed a felony but nothing is ever done about it...it will backfire.

and what is this fuckery with 'adults' being in charge? are you suggesting that only a child would bring charges? what the fuck are you mumbling about 'adults' for?

sP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProdigalJunkMail (Reply #26)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 06:33 PM

29. it is EXACTLY what you are suggesting - using federal agencies for political purposes

to "submarine" his campaign

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrDan (Reply #29)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 06:36 PM

31. wow.. you just don't get it.

if there is evidence...you prosecute. if there is none, then this is all politics that will blow up on the campaign. there is nothing the campaign needs to do. if there is evidence that he committed felonies it NEEDS to be prosecuted. the campaign won't be doing it...the gov't would be...what part of that do you not get?

sP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProdigalJunkMail (Reply #31)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 06:40 PM

34. ok - you got it figured out . . .

doubt there is much future in running a political campaign . . . so just keep up with whatever you are currently doing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrDan (Reply #34)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 06:42 PM

36. i am not suggesting HIS CAMPAIGN DO ANYTHING

but you don't get that...

sP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProdigalJunkMail (Reply #36)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 06:44 PM

38. exactly - you are suggesting FEDERAL AGENCIES do it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrDan (Reply #38)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 06:47 PM

41. right...as is their JOB...

just because he is running for office you suggest nothing be done?

sP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProdigalJunkMail (Reply #23)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 06:31 PM

27. never mind . . . the thought just boggles my mind

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrDan (Reply #27)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 06:39 PM

33. so you're ok with the media influencing

whether or not the gov't prosecutes felons? just because it would mean bad press for the felon?

sP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProdigalJunkMail (Reply #33)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 06:43 PM

37. done . . . the thought is just so ridiculous - once again, I thank GOD that

adults are running this campaign . . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrDan (Reply #37)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 06:48 PM

42. get it through your head

this is NOT ABOUT HIS CAMPAIGN...why the fuck do you keep saying that? oh, wait, I know...

sP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProdigalJunkMail (Reply #42)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 06:51 PM

44. "submarine the campaign" . . . you did say that . . . right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProdigalJunkMail (Reply #33)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 07:00 PM

50. i don't suspect anybody here remembers Watergate....

Nixon had an enemies list that he persecuted, and prosecuted through the Justice Department. his attorney General John Mitchell, resigned in disgrace as the investigation unfolded...

one has to very careful investigating political rivals..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProdigalJunkMail (Reply #21)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 07:26 PM

60. He's baiting you.

 

You are not only right, you have made your point clear enough for anyone to understand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #60)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 07:37 PM

61. "baiting"???

take a look at the other posts and see how many agree with the OP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrDan (Reply #16)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 06:55 PM

46. Right, Please get a Clue

 

this ain't going to happen.

nice try, no cigar

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iggy (Reply #46)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 06:57 PM

48. did you reply to my post? if so, not sure I understand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProdigalJunkMail (Original post)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 05:44 PM

17. 2002 is 9 years back - statute of limitations on taxes is 7 years

Justice undone is more inviting to the American public. Once the person is charged with something they start to seem more like a victim, even if only of their own foolishness, for example: Martha Stewart.

It would be very polarizing to take charge a crime far but a good step might be to make Romney resubmit the returns which are wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KurtNYC (Reply #17)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 06:19 PM

19. there is no seven year statute of limitations

that you speak of...there are a couple of limitations that are six years...for filing a false return (IRC 7206(1))...is that the one you were after?

is there a limitation on FEC and SEC filings?

sP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KurtNYC (Reply #17)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 06:38 PM

32. As explained by the IRS, the statute of limitations is not "7 years." It never has been.

 

Haven't you previously claimed that the statute of limitations is "7 years"? Hasn't it previously been explained to you that the statute of limitations is not 7 years?

Depending upon the circumstances, the statutory time period is 3 years, 6 years, or the statutory time period does not run at all.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/epch1102.pdf

The three and six-year rules do not apply to:
 Filing a false or fraudulent return - IRC section 6501(c)(1).
 Willfully attempting to evade tax - IRC section 6501(c)(2).
 Failing to file a return - IRC section 6501(c)(3).
In these instances, the tax may be assessed or collected at any time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #32)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 07:04 PM

54. Those are IRS rules but the felony at issue is an SEC violation

so wouldn't Section 2462 of Title 28 apply here?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KurtNYC (Reply #54)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 07:08 PM

56. When someone says, "statute of limitations on taxes is 7 years," I assume that they are using words

 

words with their normal meanings and they are talking about the statutes of limitations applicable to taxes.

The SEC does not enforce tax violations and does not separately have a statute of limitations applicable to tax issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProdigalJunkMail (Original post)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 06:30 PM

25. It's probably not as clear as you think

I know nothing about the law, and it appears to me that RMoney broke the law and should be frogmarched ASAP; however, people who DO know the law seem to think it may not be a crime, or even unusual in the business world. Are you aware that the Washington Post gave the whole flap 3 Pinocchios? In other words, much ado about nothing.

So, who knows??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marcia Brady (Reply #25)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 06:34 PM

30. i get that...okay

but then why would the campaign risk saying he might have committed felonies if there are none? or at least nothing that can easily be prosecuted. won't that blow up?

sP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProdigalJunkMail (Reply #30)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 07:01 PM

52. You mean the Obama campaign?

Well, because most people don't pay enough attention to get all the details. They hear an allegation, and that's what sticks. The Obama campaign saw an opportunity, and took it. Good for them. Doesn't mean there is enough there to get an indictment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProdigalJunkMail (Reply #30)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 08:00 PM

63. That is what I am wondering. Is this Stephanie Cutter doing her own thing or

 

was it planned by the campaign. That is a pretty serious accusation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marcia Brady (Reply #25)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 06:46 PM

40. Wapo was dead wrong along fc.org, it's obvious they spoke too soon and are holding out on backtrack

...backtracking by saying the FEC filings aren't as viable as we think they are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #40)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 07:03 PM

53. Hmmm . . .

Got any links? I'd really like to see anything disputing the WaPo and fc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marcia Brady (Reply #25)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 07:24 PM

59. Marcia, Marcia, Marcia.

 

I just had to say that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #59)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 07:40 PM

62. Fun, isn't it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marcia Brady (Reply #62)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 08:10 PM

65. One of my best friends is named Marcia, spelled that way. She's over 50...

 

I was having a drink with Marcia and her husband at a bar recently. She turned to me and said "I just found out why people always say my name three times when I introduce myself. Someone just explained it to me! I never watched that show."

We had a good laugh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProdigalJunkMail (Original post)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 06:32 PM

28. because he was working for Bain

just like he said on the papers, and just like Obama is saying in the campaign: Romney was head of Bain when they were outsourcing pioneers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProdigalJunkMail (Original post)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 06:40 PM

35. The immediate consequence would be articles of impeachment in the House

...for alleged abuse of power.

Nevermind the basis, they have the votes to do it.

But the point is - the SEC filings are true. It is Romney's campaign statements which are false.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #35)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 06:45 PM

39. if the SEC filings are true

then the FEC filings are not? i thought that was the issue.

sP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProdigalJunkMail (Original post)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 06:49 PM

43. Rmoney has de facto immunity because he is among the super-rich.

 

Just as Holder will not prosecute openly admitted war criminals who are walking around free, rich, and happy, and just as Holder will not prosecute banksters no matter how many criminal acts that they engaged in, Holder will not prosecute Rmoney under any circumstances.

An just as some people have closed a blind eye to Holder's misfeasance and malfeasance, and sometimes even made excuses for Holder's failure to prosecuted openly admitted war criminals and banksters, they will likewise overlook Holder's failure to prosecute Rmoney and may even create excuses for him.

Prosecutions of the super-rich are limited to situations in which the super-rich rip off other members of the super-rich. Think of Bernie Madoff. Otherwise, it's-OK-if-you're-a-rich-Republican. It's also OK-if-Holder-doesn't-actually-do-his-job-and-prosecute-open-and-notorious-wealthy-criminals-because-Holder-has-a-D-after-his-name. Think of an excuse. Any excuse will do. "He's got to keep his powder dry" might do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #43)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 10:57 PM

67. Beengo!

 

want to see how it works for the entitled uber rich:

Zuckerberg gets a $6 Million dollar loan for his house at 1.05%.

Sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeet, eh?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-16/zuckerberg-s-loan-gives-new-meaning-to-the-1-mortgages.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProdigalJunkMail (Original post)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 08:11 PM

66. Because that would end the Romney campaign.

Why stop the train wreck mid-crash?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProdigalJunkMail (Original post)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 02:39 PM

68. Because the Justice Department isn't about Justice, it's about criminal politics

 

The same reasons torturer camp creators and WMD conspirators aren't prosecuted. Rest assured you and I would be indicted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread