As an American, each of us has 3 sacred rights when it comes to being accused of something. First, everyone is presumed innocent until "proven" guilty. Second, each of us has a right to "face" our accuser, and three, "hearsay" evidence is "no proof of one's guilt or innocence" unless substantiated by other facts.
But, in Harry Reid's America, those rights don't exist. This week he "publicly" charged that Romney had paid no taxes for 10 years; citing an anonymous source. Further, he went on to say that Romney needs to prove otherwise. In doing so, he violated all three of those basic rights.
The burden of proof is on Harry; not Romney. Romney has the right to know who told Harry that he didn't pay taxes; because, not to do so violates the hearsay rule of law and Romney's right to face his accuser. Simply, in violating Romney's rights, Reid is committing both slander and defamation of character. Until Reid can prove his claims, Reid can only be viewed as a liar.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
You have confused the rights one takes into the courtroom with the rights one has under the First Amendment to say anything we want. Mr. Reid did not arrest Mr. Romney, so the legal standards do not apply.
Politics is hardball. Mr. Obama was accused of being a Kenyan Muslim socialist affirmative action gun grabbing Nazi, and even if he killed Osama he didn't do it the right way. I sure didn't see much presumption of innocence among all that.
Now consider what Mitt finds so "insulting." He is being asked to live up to what has become a traditional standard of presidential honesty, established 40 years ago by his own father and unbroken since then until now.
Mitt is "insulted" because he is asked to show he is as honest as his father? Like every other candidate since? If that's an insult, you need to meet some tougher company.
I'm not confusing anything. Slander is slander. Any slander could lead to court action. Politics is not an excuse for slander. How would Reid (or you like it) if I said that I had heard from a reliable source that Harry Reid had underage sex with a little boy last week. Would you think I would have such a right to tell such a under the First Amendment? The First Amendment does not protect lying, defamation, or slander. That's why people get sued all the time for make false statements.
Also, as far as releasing 10 years of tax returns being an unbroken tradition for 40 years. McCain only released two years. Sarah Palin only released two years. George w Bush 8. Bill Clinton 8. George H.W. Bush 3 years. Ronald Reagan 6. Jimmy Carter 3. Gerald Ford 10 years of summary data only. Nixon 4. It seems that no one but Obama has released 10 years of actual returns since Nixon's time. I don't need to meet tougher company. You need to learn to do your homework.
Interesting thing about slander. The truth is the ultimate defense.
If Mitt wants to take Reid to court for slander, it would be a first in American politics for a candidate to be such a weenie.
Here's why it won't happen. The returns will be discoverable, and discovery is public information.
I don't care if you insult Mr. Reid, and he's tough enough that he probably doesn't care either. Obama has been called a Kenyan Muslim socialist gun grabbing Affirmative action Nazi, and Romney is being asked to live up to his father's standard of honesty. One of those is an insult, and one is not. See if you can sort them out.
If Mitt wants to spend a month whining about how mean his political opposition is to compare him to his dad, Harry Reid will buy him a microphone and rent a stadium. There's nothing less presidential than whining over something trivial.
He's not going to go to court. But, if he did, Reid, too, would have to come clean. I have invoked moderation and your comments are no longer welcome.
We continue to love your blog, George! Keep up the great work!
A friend of mine posted this on Facebook and I think it apropos:
http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/08/03/glenn-gives-harry-reid-a-taste-of-his-own-medicine/
Post a Comment