PDA

View Full Version : Clinton Not Ready to Release Tax Returns


Wabash
02-12-2008, 12:45 PM
Of course not...........they are crooks!

By BETH FOUHY

WASHINGTON (AP) - Resisting calls from Barack Obama to release her income tax returns, Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday she would only do so if she secures the Democratic presidential nomination and contended her rival had been less than candid about his relationship with major campaign contributors.

In a televised interview Monday with Politico.com and local television station WJLA, Sen. Clinton said her financial holdings had been disclosed in her Senate ethics filings and that she had liquidated all her assets when she became a presidential candidate so her investments would not present a conflict of interest.

After the former first lady acknowledged she had lent her campaign $5 million in personal funds, Sen. Obama suggested she release her tax records as he has done to give voters a better accounting of where her money comes from.

The Clintons have become wealthy since leaving the White House in 2001, largely through Bill Clinton's consulting and speaking fees and the couple's lucrative book deals.

The New York senator shot back at Obama's suggestion, saying such transparency should apply to other aspects of his life.

"Senator Obama has some questions to answer about his dealings with one of his biggest contributors, Exelon - apparently he cut some deals behind closed doors to prevent them from full disclosure," Clinton said. "We still don't have answers about Senator Obama and his dealings with Mr. Rezko."

Obama has faced questions about his relationship with Chicago businessman Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who raised money for past Obama political campaigns and played a role in the purchase of the Illinois senator's home. Obama has not been accused of any wrongdoing in connection with felony fraud charges against Rezko.

Clinton and Obama tangled over Rezko at a televised debate in South Carolina, where she referred to Rezko as a "slum landlord."

Executives and employees of Exelon Corp. (EXC), a Chicago-based energy giant and nuclear plant operator, have contributed more than $200,000 to Obama's campaigns since 2004. This month, The New York Times examined whether Obama, at the behest of Exelon lobbyists, had watered down legislation aimed at tightening regulations on the nuclear industry.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton noted that Sen. Clinton had co-sponsored the nuclear regulatory legislation she now criticizes.

"Instead of playing the same Washington games that people are sick of, Senator Clinton should prove how fully vetted she is by finally releasing her tax returns so that voters can see where the millions of dollars she's dropped into her campaign are coming from," Burton said.

Clinton gave the interview on the eve of the so-called "Potomac Primary," in which Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia hold contests. She is expected to lose all three to Obama, adding to her weekend losses to him in contests in Nebraska, Washington state, Louisiana, Maine and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

In the interview, Clinton also was asked whether a "business or personal scandal" involving her husband could emerge and derail her candidacy.

"That's not going to happen," she said, adding "None of us can predict the future ... I'm very confident that will not happen.

Earlier Monday, the New York senator denied that her campaign is in trouble after the string of losses and her campaign manager's departure.

"I'm still ahead in the popular vote and in delegates," Clinton said, though the numbers do not fully support that statement.

An Associated Press tally shows Clinton with a slim lead among delegates - 1,147, compared to 1,124 for Obama. But an initial tabulation of the total popular vote showed Obama likely to pull ahead once the results of states that held caucuses are fully counted.

Speaking to reporters, Clinton said she feels very good about the state of the race, even though she is not expected to win between now and March 4, when voters in Texas and Ohio cast ballots.

"We had a great night on Super Tuesday," Clinton said, referring to the 22 states that voted Feb. 5. Clinton won eight states to Obama's 13 but scored in many of the biggest contests including New York, California, Massachusetts and New Jersey. And they divided the delegates almost evenly.

The former first lady said the decision by Patti Solis Doyle to step down as campaign manager was personal and reflected the toll of the long campaign, not a problem with her job performance.

"I have the greatest respect and affection for her," Clinton said. "I'm grateful for the enormously successful job that she's done."

She said Solis Doyle would remain a senior adviser. Maggie Williams, a longtime Clinton confidante and former chief of staff from Clinton's days as first lady, replaced Solis Doyle.

She noted that the states she won on Super Tuesday were all states Democrats must win to succeed in the general election. Many of the states Obama won that night, such as Alaska and North Dakota, would not be competitive for Democrats next November, she said.

Clinton also dismissed concern that Obama had all the momentum going into the next round of contests. Besides Tuesday's primaries, he's favored to win contests next week in Wisconsin and Hawaii.

"Before Super Tuesday you all were reporting on all the momentum. It didn't turn out to be true," she said. "Let's have the elections. Instead of talking about them, pontificating and punditing, let's let people actually vote."
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080212/D8UOJTLG0.html

cassandra
02-12-2008, 01:59 PM
hmm something certainly fishy there.

Wabash
02-12-2008, 02:12 PM
They have their attorney involved....OH, there he is now..




http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x77/watermelon039/shark.gif

Deadshot
02-12-2008, 02:19 PM
I guess I'll start to take this seriously from the Right when they begin their assault on the Bush White House and the way they cover up things (Cheney's secret Energy meeting; hiding things from the 9/11 commission; "oops" we shredded or deleted some documents that "might" be important :rolleyes) Until then, what's good for the goose...

But it isn't something that will help her campaign, Obviously.:sparks2

Wabash
02-12-2008, 02:29 PM
I guess I'll start to take this seriously from the Right when they begin their assault on the Bush White House and the way they cover up things (Cheney's secret Energy meeting; hiding things from the 9/11 commission; "oops" we shredded or deleted some documents that "might" be important :rolleyes) Until then, what's good for the goose...

But it isn't something that will help her campaign, Obviously.:sparks2

With all due respect DS...before Bush, the Clintons led the way in dirty tricks, lost documents, shredded documents, coverups and possibly criminal actions of all kinds...not just in the WH but in Ar-keen-saw...

If Bush and Co. are guilty of something, they had Great role models!

Deadshot
02-12-2008, 02:37 PM
But then I would defer you to the body count of each regime. With the Clintons you can claim money and power was stolen. I have also heard about them having people killed from other crazies. But Bush has done the same thing with money and power and his body count, due to a war in Iraq, is astronomically high.

So again, if we're comparing the two regimes, and you seem to be doing that, let's not crush one without admitting up front that BOTH regimes have not just a closet, but houses full of skeletons. Once we get past that stage we have to look at the state of the country when those people were POTUS. Bill has certainly done better then Bush-R ("R" for Recession). As to Hillary and her dirty tricks, I think she's getting some bad press, but ALL politicians have some dirtiness behind them.

To single her out and not comment on our current POTUS and his dirty laundry is disingenuous.

nixon
02-12-2008, 02:49 PM
With all due respect DS...before Bush, the Clintons led the way in dirty tricks, lost documents, shredded documents, coverups and possibly criminal actions of all kinds...not just in the WH but in Ar-keen-saw...

If Bush and Co. are guilty of something, they had Great role models! Let me see if I have you right on this, what you are implying is that it is O.K. if the current Administration conducts itself in an unethical practice because the previous Administration did the same. Do I understand you on this? Is this the defense you you are trying to use? They did it, so we can do it. It's pretty fuckin' lame and I'm glad you aren't my lawyer. Nixon.

Wabash
02-12-2008, 03:24 PM
But then I would defer you to the body count of each regime. With the Clintons you can claim money and power was stolen. I have also heard about them having people killed from other crazies. But Bush has done the same thing with money and power and his body count, due to a war in Iraq, is astronomically high.

So again, if we're comparing the two regimes, and you seem to be doing that, let's not crush one without admitting up front that BOTH regimes have not just a closet, but houses full of skeletons. Once we get past that stage we have to look at the state of the country when those people were POTUS. Bill has certainly done better then Bush-R ("R" for Recession). As to Hillary and her dirty tricks, I think she's getting some bad press, but ALL politicians have some dirtiness behind them.

To single her out and not comment on our current POTUS and his dirty laundry is disingenuous.
Bush ain't running for anything! Therefore, I think we should concentrate on the threat at hand!
Every Adm. has had it's share of shady activity, I still believe that LBJ was involved in the conspiracy to kill JFK.....appears to me that you are worrying about the wrong things!

With all due respect DS...before Bush, the Clintons led the way in dirty tricks, lost documents, shredded documents, coverups and possibly criminal actions of all kinds...not just in the WH but in Ar-keen-saw...

If Bush and Co. are guilty of something, they had Great role models! Let me see if I have you right on this, what you are implying is that it is O.K. if the current Administration conducts itself in an unethical practice because the previous Administration did the same. Do I understand you on this? Is this the defense you you are trying to use? They did it, so we can do it. It's pretty fuckin' lame and I'm glad you aren't my lawyer. Nixon.
You ask 2 questions, then before getting any answer...you condemn me...way to go nix!

nixon
02-12-2008, 03:40 PM
Bush ain't running for anything! Therefore, I think we should concentrate on the threat at hand!
Every Adm. has had it's share of shady activity, I still believe that LBJ was involved in the conspiracy to kill JFK.....appears to me that you are worrying about the wrong things!


You ask 2 questions, then before getting any answer...you condemn me...way to go nix!Your right, I was wrong to not wait for your reply. Hope you can accept an apology. Nixon.

issac the dragon
02-12-2008, 04:23 PM
I think it is truly wonderful that the far right is coming around to the idea of open government. Does that mean the Poppy's records are going to be opened? What is Jr. hiding?

I do not and never have believed that any politician should have to give their income tax returns to the public. They are not rock stars, have not put themselves out to the public to be idolized, and don't deserve to lose every shred of privacy. The press needs to get off their high horse. The public may want to know every thing about everyone, (actually I don't) but they don't have the right. And that includes the tax returns of Cheney, Bush, and Rove. And I don't think they should have to give their medical records to the vultures who pick the bones of everyone who tries to serve their country either.

Ringo
02-12-2008, 04:44 PM
I guess I'll start to take this seriously from the Right when they begin their assault on the Bush White House and the way they cover up things (Cheney's secret Energy meeting; hiding things from the 9/11 commission; "oops" we shredded or deleted some documents that "might" be important :rolleyes) Until then, what's good for the goose...

But it isn't something that will help her campaign, Obviously.:sparks2


Earth to Deadshot, its a fucking Liberal asking a Commie Liberal to fess up the truth, adn the bitch can't handle the truth! Both should be sitting in ol Sparky at Leavenworth, not cheered on by sheep with blinders!!:mw:aliens:mw:wabash

Wabash
02-12-2008, 04:47 PM
Your right, I was wrong to not wait for your reply. Hope you can accept an apology. Nixon.
It's ok nix....now as to the answer:
I'm jes sayin, that pretty much every politician is dirty in some way and we need to focus on the election...

I think it is truly wonderful that the far right is coming around to the idea of open government. Does that mean the Poppy's records are going to be opened? What is Jr. hiding?

I do not and never have believed that any politician should have to give their income tax returns to the public. They are not rock stars, have not put themselves out to the public to be idolized, and don't deserve to lose every shred of privacy. The press needs to get off their high horse. The public may want to know every thing about everyone, (actually I don't) but they don't have the right. And that includes the tax returns of Cheney, Bush, and Rove. And I don't think they should have to give their medical records to the vultures who pick the bones of everyone who tries to serve their country either.
I tend to agree with you on this.....medical records and tax records should not be on Public Display!
If there is a problem, then the approved investigating agencies should do their job and only criminal wrong doing should be made public!

issac the dragon
02-12-2008, 05:00 PM
Wabash, every once in a while you and I agree on something. Makes me nervous, and probably does you too. As long as you know what to do with it, I won't worry.

nixon
02-12-2008, 08:52 PM
It's ok nix....now as to the answer:
I'm jes sayin, that pretty much every politician is dirty in some way and we need to focus on the election...


I tend to agree with you on this.....medical records and tax records should not be on Public Display!
If there is a problem, then the approved investigating agencies should do their job and only criminal wrong doing should be made public!I agree, we need to focus on the election. Tell me about the Keating Five.

Ringo
02-13-2008, 10:13 AM
I agree, we need to focus on the election. Tell me about the Keating Five.


Ok he will if you tell us about this?

http://richmonddemocrat.blogspot.com/2008/01/major-scandal-detonates-over-clinton.html

Or this and NOTE the SOURCES they are solid!

http://www.realchange.org/obama.htm

nixon
02-13-2008, 12:22 PM
Ok he will if you tell us about this?

http://richmonddemocrat.blogspot.com/2008/01/major-scandal-detonates-over-clinton.html

Or this and NOTE the SOURCES they are solid!

http://www.realchange.org/obama.htmWhat's wrong with snortin' a little blow? I don't have a problem with that, do you? Shows me he's a regular guy. He's got my vote if he snorts blow. And I'm not fuckin' around when I say that. Nixon. Chop one out.

Yellowdogtexan
02-15-2008, 04:55 PM
McCain is refusing to release his tax returns even though he is the defacto GOP nominee. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/15/opinion/15fri1.html?ex=1360731600&en=b78cd368a241aae7&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=allLikewise, Senator McCain has yet to release his tax returns, a strange omission for a candidate with a record of supporting strong government ethics measures. A spokesman for Mr. McCain raises the prospect that he may hold back his tax returns through the fall campaign, saying that he would not decide whether to release them until he officially is the Republican nominee. That would neatly thwart the party-vetting process, even if he does finally make the returns public. In the meantime, questions are arising about the senator’s fund-raising as it relates to his position as the former chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee and its regulatory powers over business.

Participation in big-money politics inevitably runs the risk of encountering deep-pocketed benefactors who can become back-slapping embarrassments. Mr. McCain learned that lesson when he was caught up in the Keating Five scandal in the 1980s.

Wabash
02-15-2008, 06:09 PM
Wabash, every once in a while you and I agree on something. Makes me nervous, and probably does you too. As long as you know what to do with it, I won't worry.
It's ok with me...just goes to show we must be of the human race and not aliens!:LL

What's wrong with snortin' a little blow? I don't have a problem with that, do you? Shows me he's a regular guy. He's got my vote if he snorts blow. And I'm not fuckin' around when I say that. Nixon. Chop one out.
It's stupid number ONE, and illegal number TWO, and I've arrested a large number of people over the years for doing it and enjoyed every moment!

McCain is refusing to release his tax returns even though he is the defacto GOP nominee. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/15/opinion/15fri1.html?ex=1360731600&en=b78cd368a241aae7&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

Hillary first..............your move..:LL

Yellowdogtexan
02-15-2008, 06:19 PM
Hillary first..............your move..Hillary should provide her returns also. However, McCain is closer to being the GOP nominee than Senator Clinton is to becoming the Democratic nominee

nixon
02-15-2008, 06:28 PM
What's stupid about it? Our government brings it into the country. You don't think our lawmakers are snorting any? C'mon,Wabs. Not only that, by arresting people like you said you did, is blow no longer available? All of your hard work and you didn't get jackshit accomplished. Sounds like a real government job, Ace. Nixon. Like I said before, "Chop one out"

Viki
02-15-2008, 07:01 PM
Oh my goodness, do we or do we not live in the best of the worst: a mixed capitalistic system, which encourages us to amass a good enough amount of wealth without doing too much harm to others?

Wabash
02-15-2008, 07:43 PM
Hillary should provide her returns also. However, McCain is closer to being the GOP nominee than Senator Clinton is to becoming the Democratic nominee
Maybe...

What's stupid about it? Our government brings it into the country. You don't think our lawmakers are snorting any? C'mon,Wabs. Not only that, by arresting people like you said you did, is blow no longer available? All of your hard work and you didn't get jackshit accomplished. Sounds like a real government job, Ace. Nixon. Like I said before, "Chop one out"
Stupid for the simple reason it's unhealthy for your body...almost every drug is bad for your body, not to mention all the processed and hydrolyzed food that is on the market...I stay away from all of it.
Smoking weed, snorting blow or anything else is just plain dumb! Smoking cigarettes is just as dumb.
Stupid on a health level all by itself, w/o any inherent legality even coming into play.

nixon
02-15-2008, 08:19 PM
Maybe...


Stupid for the simple reason it's unhealthy for your body...almost every drug is bad for your body, not to mention all the processed and hydrolyzed food that is on the market...I stay away from all of it.
Smoking weed, snorting blow or anything else is just plain dumb! Smoking cigarettes is just as dumb.
Stupid on a health level all by itself, w/o any inherent legality even coming into play.If I tried, I could prove the water you are drinking is detrimental to your health. The same could be said about the air you're breathing. Nixon.