Washington Post fact-checker calls Harry Reid a liar just 'cause

[ProSense]

Washington Post fact-checker calls Harry Reid a liar just 'cause

by Kaili Joy Gray

One of the funniest things—on a long and growing list of funny things—about Mitt Romney's refusal to release his tax returns is how the supposedly neutral "fact-checkers" are bending over backward to make it Harry Reid's fault.

<...>

But Kessler, like other fact-checkers, is really hung up on this idea that tax experts—as opposed to, say, Mitt Romney—can clear up whether Harry Reid is lying, which is irrelevant to anything because the issue is not about Harry Reid. It's about Mitt Romney. But that's something lost on the hacktastic fact-checkers. Kessler even speaks to "a number of tax experts," who agree:

(G)iven Romney’s current portfolio, it was highly improbable for Romney to have had 10 years with taxfree returns — though there could have been one or two years with little or no taxes.

Well, there's a bold conclusion. It's improbable that Romney paid no taxes—except for the years when it's possible he paid no taxes. Thanks, tax experts, for the clarification!

Kessler gives Reid a whopping four Pinocchios for his failure to provide evidence about Mitt Romney's tax returns, explaining that "Reid also has made no effort to explain why his unnamed source would be credible. So, in the absence of more information, it appears he has no basis to make his incendiary claim."

Right. Harry Reid has no basis to make his incendiary claim that someone told him Mitt Romney didn't pay taxes. So obviously, to get to the real truth here, what we need is some evidence from Harry Reid. Not, say, Mitt Romney, the guy who could clear all of this up so easily. He's made some pretty incendiary claims himself, after all, including that he paid a lot of money in taxes. Yeah? Well, where's the evidence? The idea that asking tax experts to explain what might be in Mitt's taxes, or how much he might have paid, or which loopholes he might have exploited is a gigantic steaming waste of time. Why speculate? Why not just look at Mitt's tax returns to know for certain what's in there? Oh yeah. Because he refuses to provide any evidence to back up his incendiary claims.

Kessler the fact-checker goes into hack overtime with his conclusion:

Moreover, Reid holds a position of great authority in the U.S. Congress. He should hold himself to a high standard of accuracy when making claims about political opponents.

Oh, well, in that case. Reid holds a position of great authority—Mitt Romney merely wants to be president of the United State of America. Clearly, Reid carries that additional burden of accuracy that simply does not apply to Mitt.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/07/1117585/-Washington-Post-fact-checker-calls-Harry-Reid-a-liar-just-cause

Yeah, Reid needs to be held to a higher standard than Mitt.

But here's the kicker from Kessler: "though there could have been one or two years with little or no taxes"

WTF? How would Kessler know this? And if there "could have been one or two years with little or no taxes," how does he know there aren't 10 years?

On edit: Let's assume that Romney hasn't paid taxes for somewhere between two (according to Kessler) and 10 years (according to Reid's source).

Here's How Mitt Romney Might Have Paid No Taxes
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021087432

The ‘Missing Evidence’ In Romney’s Tax Records
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021084266

"Talking about a rich person's taxes, though—that's just too damn much."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021083606

Look, Romney's Failure To Disclose Is a Disqualifier
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021087307

[Politicalboi]

1. Reid should double down and say

Rmoney didn't pay any taxes for 20 years. LOL! If they are going to call him a liar, it doesn't matter how many years.

[1StrongBlackMan]

2. So ...

Well, there's a bold conclusion. It's improbable that Romney paid no taxes—except for the years when it's possible he paid no taxes. Thanks, tax experts, for the clarification!

Wouldn't it, also, be as likely that in some of those years romney received a refund?

After all, we know GE and other multi-billion dollar corporations did.

[ProSense]

3. Anything is possible

until Romney releases his tax returns. Amnesty is still a possibility.

[EC]

4. Fact checkers that throw up strawmen....?

Reid never said Rmoney didn't pay taxes, he said someone told him that and he believes it. So how did he lie? I'm guessing a lot of people have said the same thing about Rmoney.

[SoapBox]

5. Mittens...Put or Shut Up!

Period.

[part man all 86]

6. Harry spreading a little manure on the republicans, but wait the sky is falling, the sky is falling.

The end of civilization as we know it, Harry dropped the Lie bomb. It's politics. Read the Rude Pundit today then get in touch with your spine, this is war and in war bad things happen.

[Iliyah]

7. The GOP can dish it out BUT can't take it huh

Then, instead of actual fact checking because we all know majority of the American people including the Washington Post DOES NOT know what is entailed in Mittens 10 years prior taxes.

But as we know, that doesn't stop the lying machine called the GOP and "Lying for the Lord" R'money huh. Y'think the "Christians" of the GOP party would follow the ten commandments and the constitution which these Christians claim to LOVE.

[veganlush]

8. I'm with reid and the dems all the way, but...

I'm surprised at how many people are misunderstanding this issue. Reid hasn't said he's seen proof. Reid is a lawyer so he knows what hearsay is, and he knows this is hearsay. He doesn't really deny that. Anytime someone makes an assertion and doesn't have/provide facts to back it up, as passes it on, it's hearsay. The fact that it's hearsay doesn't mean it isn't true, it just means that no proof was provided. It doesn't even matter if it's true. It's a tactic by Reid and the dems to pressure Romney to produce his tax records, period.

Reid doesn't say that he begged the person to come forward (which he would have done if it was true) He doesn't say he asked the person for proof either. He just says the guy told him this stuff and that's it. He planted a seed and let it grow. There's nothing wrong with that. Only Reid need ever know if the conversation took place, it's immaterial.

It's not much different from when police catch two partners in crime and interrogate them separately. First they talk to to the one that they feel is the stronger of the two. Then they go to the other one and tell him that the first one fessed up to everything, AND implicated the second one for all the worst parts of the crime. Often this makes the second one confess, even though the first one really didn't cooperate at all.

To re-cap: the dems and/or Reid used a tactic, and a good one, to plant a seed and put pressure on Romney to release returns. What exactly happened between Reid and anyone else is immaterial. I've seen a few comments on D.U. that make it obvious that people here have misunderstood this whole thing. For my part I'm happy to see the Democrats fighting back in the most important election in a long, long time.

[DearAbby]

9. What is WaPo using as source?

Ouija board? Tea leaves? They have no idea who Reid's source is...how can they judge his/her credibility? When are the crack investigative journalists going to go out and get the story? A Scoop of the 2012 election?

Call them shills for the corporate-elite.