(That’s “Snarky” rather than “sSarky”…)
We all have unanswered questions, doubt. Here are two of mine:
**For Bernie Sanders: **
Clinton and Kasich have released eight and seven years of full tax returns, respectively; Trump may never release his. But Democrats are supposed to value transparency, and so far Sanders has released just ONE year (2014) despite many requests that he match his Democratic rival for the nomination in releasing eight.
So, Senator Sanders: What’s up with the repeated use of the excuse “Jane does our taxes; we’ve been a little bit busy, lately”? Sanders seems to think this is a cute, warm, humanizing thing to say. And sure, it explains why the 2015 pages aren’t yet posted. But how does it explain the failure to release the returns for 2008 – 2013 (to match Clinton)?
Isn’t it just a matter of uploading the file (if the forms are electronic) or going to the file cabinet, pulling the files, and slapping then on the copier for scanning (if the forms are paper)?
Even if it’s the case that all this would take up a full hour of Jane’s time (not meant snarkily), she could have a trusted aide take care of it, surely….? If the returns are going to be made public then they couldn’t be so secret that a trusted aide couldn’t be allowed to scan and upload them.
Sanders’ excuse makes me wonder if the “we’ve been busy” excuse means that something odd is going on. Is it that Jane has to fabricate the returns for 2008 to 2013 from scratch? (Granted, that would take time!) Probably not. But what’s the delay?
So, how about it, Senator? Why keep using the “Jane does our taxes; we’ve been busy” excuse? It really doesn’t make any sense.
**For Hillary Clinton: **
Why haven’t the Clinton people made the public (and pundits) aware of something extremely obvious about the release of speeches? Namely, that this sort of thing can be done with them:
As many here will know, Liberty University, located in Virginia, is an exceptionally conservative Evangelical Christian school, at which creationism is taught as a biology course, and president Jerry Falwell, Jr., said in 2015 ““If more good people had concealed carry permits, then we could end those Muslims before they walked in.” They are really, *really *conservative.
Speaking at Liberty University in September 2015, Bernie Sanders said this:
OMG! Bernie Sanders just praised a man and an institution that randomly drug-tests its students, that bans all music/movies/other entertainment that contains curse words or nudity, and that states “Sexual relations outside of a biblically ordained marriage between a natural-born man and a natural-born woman are not permissible at Liberty University.”
Bernie Sanders is no progressive if he can praise such a place! He has been faking it this whole time! He is a hypocrite! He is a tool of the right!
……Uh, no. He’s a person making a speech. When you are invited to make a speech, you begin by saying some nice things about those who invited you. It’s just common courtesy.
Similarly, if GOP Presidential candidate X had ever been invited to speak before the AFL-CIO or the Urban League, X would probably have begun with a few kind words about the institution----words which then could be excerpted by his or her primary rivals as “proof” that X is A TOOL OF THE UNIONS or SOFT ON CRIME or NOT SHARING OUR VALUES or whatever.
It’s ridiculous. But it would happen.
The demand that speeches be released serves primary rivals and only primary rivals. It will be of no use to the eventual GOP candidate if Hillary is found to have said nice things to executives of Goldman Sachs. GOP voters aren’t going to vote for Hillary anyway, no matter whether or not she paid some compliments to Wall Streeters.
(I’ve heard the theory that the GOP will freak if Hillary said something positive about the bail-outs, given that many on the right say they think poorly of bail-outs. But I find it unconvincing. If they think HRC said anything like ‘do whatever you want, guys—I’ll see that you never face any consequences!!!1!!’,then they are living in a dream world. She won’t have said anything of the kind.)
So, my question for Secretary Clinton is: why aren’t you pointing out the cynical way in which speeches can be used to “prove” things that aren’t true, by highlighting the Sanders Liberty University example?
… What are the questions you’d like to see either Sanders or Clinton answer?