Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Wednesday, February 20, 2019

SECOND UPDATE: Four days after my column below about Bernie Sanders refusing to release his full tax returns and his spokesman making a false statement and then ignoring my follow-up questions, Sanders just received the worst rating you can earn from the Washington Post’s Fact Checker — four Pinocchios — “for his false claim that he has released his full federal tax returns.”

UPDATE: Two days after the column below went up  — provoking extensive commentary on Twitter and Facebook as well as here and on other websites —  CNN’s Jake Tapper asked Senator Bernie Sanders whether he would match Hillary Clinton, who has posted eight years of complete tax returns on her campaign website (and full returns back to1992 at taxhistory.org). The full interview on CNN’s “State of the Union” program can be found here — Tapper asks the tax question at around 5:20. 

Tapper said he is “kind of surprised you haven’t gone further in transparency” and asked “will you match her?” by disclosing returns before the April 19 New York primary.

Sanders replied that there was nothing interesting in his tax returns, which his wife prepares, and then said,  “We will get out as much information as we can…we will get it out as soon as we can.” That dodges the issue that all candidates should release full returns and doesn’t explain why he has failed to post any full returns, which he said are in the possession of his wife Jane.

Tapper then gently challenged Sanders on issuing only Form 1040, a summary, but not his full tax returns. Sanders said, “No that’s not true. That is not true, we have released them in the past.”

But the Sanders campaign has not provided me with any returns after I repeatedly requested them. My web searches have not turned up any Sanders tax returns, save the 2014 Form 1040. But if someone has located complete Sanders tax returns, please email me via davidcay@me.com.

If there are no full returns available, then the Senator has offered a deceptive response. If his campaign clarifies his remarks (or releases his tax returns  back to 2007, when he became a senator), I’ll update again.

———

Bernie Sanders holds himself out to huge and adoring crowds as a model of personal, political and financial integrity. But when it comes to revealing his income tax returns, Sanders is as tricky a politician as Republicans Ted Cruz and John Kasich.

In this bizarre political year, Donald Trump has shown more candor than Sanders when it comes to his tax returns. That is an amazing and disturbing feat, given Trump’s penchant for exaggeration and just making stuff up, as I have been documenting since 1988. Understand that while Trump has fabricated an excuse for not disclosing any of his income tax returns, he was being more forthright than Sanders, who tries to pretend that he has disclosed his taxes.

What may surprise some is that of the five remaining Presidential candidates, only Hillary Clinton has been completely candid and forthright about her and her husband’s income tax returns, a policy of theirs that dates at least to 1992. Despite her singular transparency, news organizations routinely write, without citing any verifiable supporting facts, about Clinton’s perceived mendacity.

So what’s the issue? The Sanders, Cruz and Kasich campaigns have all distributed what they claim are tax returns; Kasich for seven years, Cruz for four, and Sanders for just one year, 2014.

But those proclaimed disclosures were neither accurate nor honest. None of those candidates has released even a single tax return.

What they made public instead was merely a summary known as IRS Form 1040. That form is no more a tax return than the Preamble is the Constitution.

No, a tax return is the entire document filed with the IRS – the forms, schedules, and statements that reveal the numbers and calculations about income, deductions, and tax liabilities behind the summary information on Form 1040. Without the full tax return, the public cannot know sources of income, justifications for deductions, or how aggressively tax law was applied to reduce the income tax due.

History tells us that disclosing complete tax returns, not just a summary form, is vital to determining a president’s trustworthiness. It was only 45 years ago that (freshly “resigned”) Vice President Spiro Agnew plead guilty to one count of tax evasion, making him a felon. Without the action of an IRS employee who illegally leaked President Nixon‘s 1969 through 1972 tax returns, we would never have known about the tax crimes in which the president was an unindicted co-conspirator, and for which one of his advisors plead guilty. If all we had were Nixon’s and Agnew’s Form 1040s, their tax crimes would have remained unknown.

On disclosing tax returns Trump scores better than Sanders, because while Trump will not release his returns, citing a bogus excuse, he has not tried to pretend that he did disclose. But that is exactly what Sanders, Cruz and Kasich did. (Trump says he can’t disclose because he is under IRS audit, even though revealing his returns would have no impact on the audit of a tax return, which is signed under penalty of perjury.)

Contrast their conduct with Hillary Clinton, whose every tax return signed by her and husband Bill has been disclosed since at least 1992. That’s how we know they are far more charitable than the self-described “ardent philanthropist” Donald Trump or any other of the various presidents back to FDR (and some presidential wannabes like Newt Gingrich) who have made public their tax returns. Those returns, and in some cases only Form 1040s, are posted at taxhistory.org, a website maintained by the nonprofit Tax Analysts, for which I write critiques of tax policy.

As for Sanders, the single Form 1040 he released raises more questions than it answers, especially since the junior senator from Vermont has a history of making incomplete and misleading financial disclosures.

In 2014, he reported an adjusted gross income of $205,271, most of it from his Senate salary.

What appears unusual are his itemized deductions, totaling $56,377, a whopping 27.4 percent of his income. People in his income class of $200,000 to $500,000 on average take 15.6 percent of their income as deductions, while those in the $100,000 to $200,000 range averaged 18.8 percent. Both averages are far below the Sanders itemization rate.

Sanders and his wife paid $27,653 in federal income tax, or 13.4 percent of their adjusted gross income.

When I tried to look more closely at Sanders’ taxes, Michael Briggs, the chief spokesman for his campaign, sent a statement that is simply not true, although he may not have understood why at first. In an email, Briggs wrote that Sanders and his wife Jane “made public his federal and state income tax returns last year when he became a candidate for president and intends to do so again this year.”

I wrote back to Briggs repeatedly, explaining that a Form 1040 is not a tax return. Perhaps that was unnecessary, since Briggs has more than two decades of experience as a political reporter and publicist for various U.S. senators. More than two decades ago on C-SPAN, he displayed a nuanced understanding of legal issues.

That background raises difficult questions about Briggs’ responses, which i tried to explore despite his failure to answer follow-up questions. The Cruz and Kasich campaigns also ignored emails asking for their complete tax returns or an explanation of why only Form 1040s were released

To readers who think this sounds too harsh, I’d say that when Sanders holds himself out as a paragon — running a campaign built on the idea that he remains untainted by money from the rich and powerful — he should be expected to walk the talk.

Sanders set the standard here. I am holding him to the same measure of integrity that I have used to assess Bill and Hillary Clinton, George W. Bush, Steve Forbes, and numerous other politicians at the federal, state and local levels going back almost 50 years to my first investigative story.

Last fall, Sanders revised his 2012 and 2014 financial disclosures twice. His 2013 disclosure was revised three times. Sanders failed to disclose four mortgages, all of them at market interest rates, which raises a question about his judgment, since nothing appears improper except the failure to fully disclose.

Mark Lippman of Daily Kos was evidently the first to report the Vermont senator’s incomplete disclosures. He also noted that the value of Jane Sanders’ “retirement accounts appreciated in value from $285,000 in 2011 to $481,000 in 2014.” Nothing wrong there, by the way, though readers may find the 68.8 percent increase puzzling because Lippman failed to give context. The broad stock market rose 64 percent during that period, indicating the big gain was basically owed to stock market returns, plus about $400 a month in additional deposits to Ms. Sanders’ retirement portfolio.

Why Sanders would play games with his income taxes is a mystery. While he is much better off than most Americans, he is a man of modest means compared to Clinton, Cruz, and Trump. But his conduct raises a question politically. Is  he hiding something? Certainly Trump is, since the boastful billionaire probably pays close to zero in income taxes, as I have explained here, here and here.

The question to ask Sanders – as well as Cruz, Kasich, and Trump – is why they are hiding the information they supplied under penalty of perjury to the IRS as a true, complete, and accurate description of their income, deductions, and taxes.

And whatever you may think of Hillary Clinton, she deserves real props for more than two decades of being forthright and complete in disclosing her tax returns.

Photo: Democratic U.S. presidential candidate Bernie Sanders holds a rally at Safeco Field in Seattle, Washington March 25, 2016. REUTERS/David Ryder  – RTSCAI8

  • Share this on Google+0
  • Share this on Linkedin0
  • Share this on Reddit9
  • Print this page
  • 11034

762 responses to “Why Hasn’t Bernie Sanders Released His Tax Returns? (Or Cruz Or Kasich, Either…)”

  1. Otto T. Goat says:

    Sanders is pro-taxes, except when it comes to himself.

  2. BostonHoundDog says:

    Before the BernieBros attack the author David Kay Johnson is as progressive as they come

    • dtgraham says:

      We just defend. The writers of the National — don’t vote for Bernie Sanders — Memo do all of the attacking on Bernie. It never stops.

      • Johnny 5 says:

        Your profound ignorance and proclivity for unsubstantiated attacks is noted. Don’t for one moment misconstrue your misinformation campaign as a defense. We all know you are attacking anyone who doesn’t drink your KoolAid, mostly because you cannot defend your candidate on the merits and his vacuous rhetoric has no effect on people who actually pay attention.

        • dtgraham says:

          And taking 56 words to basically just say that I’m ignorant is noted too. Oh sorry…profound ignorance.

          Did it ever occur to you that Johnson’s substantiated complaints amount to Bernie not disclosing 4 mortgages in the past, and not releasing his full tax return yet?

          He says that Sander’s itemized deductions slightly exceed those with similar incomes. He’s a United States Senator. He would have expenses exceeding most of those in the same income bracket. Deductions totalling 18.8% of income for that bracket is average, as was noted. A U.S. Senator wouldn’t be in the average category.

          Then he goes on to talk about Jane Sander’s retirement income growth. He first paints a picture of it growing by an enormous amount in a short period of time (must be financial shenanigans right?). Then he calmly explains that it was due to enormous stock market growth. So, why mention it at all then? Why? Just to get in a shot and leave certain readers with the wrong impression. Why else?

          Where’s the balance, insofar as reporting on Hillary’s little problems as well?

          • davidcayjohnston says:

            By the way, you seem not to understand what a column is. It’s not a news story. It is based on facts. And I provide to relevant facts with context on the five remaining candidates. Your assumptions immediately above are baseless.

          • ray jones says:

            David thank you for the article. Why would any Bernie supporters who follow Bernie who preaches clean hands, have a problem with anyone asking him a fair questions. Sanders campaign is running from this issue.

          • A_Real_Einstein says:

            Facts are used routinely to purposely mislead by the media. You give the reader an impression that Bernie is hiding something as a result of only turning in a Summary Form 1040. This is the sort of thing that I would expect from Breitbart. I heard they were hiring, looks like you will fit right in.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            The author is correctly pointing out that Sanders has not released his tax returns, despite stating he has done so. How is that misleading?

          • A_Real_Einstein says:

            Google Form 1040 and then come back and tell me that is not totally misleading. Reminds me of Hillary telling me that she only accepted small donations from individuals who happened to work in the oil,gas and coal industries. Turns out between her and her Superpac they took in over $4,000,000 from the Fossil Fuel industry. Sure Hillary, lobbyists are merely rank and file employees for the corporations they represent. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            It’s not totally misleading, it’s an absolutely true statement. He has not released his tax returns.

          • A_Real_Einstein says:

            What is an IRS Form 1040?

          • Mr Corrections says:

            It’s PART of a tax return.

          • ray jones says:

            …transparency indeed, for,1 year without completed informs and other years imformation wasnt released. Where are the other years???|

          • A_Real_Einstein says:

            Why don’t you ask Bernie? Nobody else has asked him because nobody really cares. I am sure he would release them just like all of the of the transcripts of all the speeches he made to the banks,health insurance companies,big pharma and the fossil fuel industry. Don’t you agree that taking millions of dollars from fossil fuel lobbyists is the equivalent taking in personal donations from people who just happen work for oil, gas, and coal corporations? Not turning in the attachments to the actual tax return is the best you got? Feel the Bern. Feel the tide turn.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            So the article was entirely accurate but (something something) Clinton bad. Got it, thanks.

          • A_Real_Einstein says:

            Feeling the tide turn?

          • Mr Corrections says:

            Um, no? Sanders has had no chance of winning the primary since March 1st, and nothing has changed?

          • A_Real_Einstein says:

            After they credit all of Washington state delegates he is down by less than 200 voted delegates. He is going to win WI, CA, NY and many more states. The Superdelagates will switch to support the candidate that wins the majority of the voted delegates. Her lies are catching up to her and she is melting down again. This is 2008 all over again. Watch the panic set in after Tuesday and the polls come out in NY. This is hard to watch. She is not a bad person but like the American people her cheese has moved. Bernbabybern.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            He has to win all the remaining states – almost none of which are caucuses – by 57%. He has never exceeded 43% overall popularity. He is not going to win NY.

            I hope that helps!

          • Ray Jones says:

            The writer asked Bernie’s campaign did you read the article?

          • ray jones says:

            Well according to you HC is dishonest and Bernie is honest? Yet your honest candidate refuses to be transparent on his own personal taxes. Sounds like oh Trump and Romeny. Yet HC THE dishonest one has release two decades of her full taxes.

          • ray jones says:

            Yet that has what to do with Bernie lack of disclosure? Transparency

          • davidcayjohnston says:

            Columnist here…

            Your Breitbart comment is rubbish and had you spent less than a minute researching my career you would know better. Shame on you.

            BTW for 40 years I have written press criticism, sometimes resulting in major changes. I’m the only journalist whose work forced a broadcaster off the air — six stations whose owner manipulated the news for profit. So that makes your smear especially fact-defying.

            My column discusses a serious subject in a serious way with context, both political and historical.

            For 49 years as a journalist I have comported myself with absolute integrity, often at a high price to myself and my family and at times putting myself in serious physical danger. So I get deeply offended at flippant remarks like yours, which are not based on any facts. You should feel ashamed — deeply ashamed — for your fact-defying and reprehensible comment.

          • A_Real_Einstein says:

            Please reread your headline and come back and tell me what impression you would make to the reader who does read the article and is not a CPA. Then google Form 1040. To insinuate that a merely turning in a summary of Form 1040 is being less forthright then Donald Trump. Seriously? Not your best work. You embarrass yourself with crap like this. Based on your distinguished career, what motivates you to write this?

          • davidcayjohnston says:

            What’s wrong with the headline? I don’t write headlines (how do you not know that???), but it is 100% accurate and balanced, too:

            Why Hasn’t Bernie Sanders Released His Tax Returns? (Or Cruz Or Kasich, Either…)

            You clearly failed to grasp the factual basis on which I characterized Bernie as less forthright than Trump — which is really hard to do. I explained in plain English. So, please, take a deep breath and read carefully so you realize that you get it dead wrong in your “insinuate” line. From other posts subtly appears not to be your strong suit, but nuance, like verifiable fact, matters.

            A 1040 is NOT a tax return. My column explains that as well as the reasons that revealing years of tax return matters — and its not just about Sanders, as my column notes. The issue is about every candidate, every president, and integrity in the White House, as my column makes abundantly clear if you read thoughtfully and with care.

            This is a point I have made in the past when I was an NYTimes reporter regarding Cheney, GWbush, etc. (And when I revealed that the Clintons mishandled their taxes, breaking Mrs. Clinton’s stated standards and shortchanging charity, it prompted them to follow my implicit advice the next year.)

            Again in 2012, when I was a Reuters columnist, I explained why we needed Mitt Romney’s tax returns not for two years, but for those when he was the sole owner of Bain Capital Management. (BTW, did you know that he was not just manager as most reporters said, but the sole owner? — not unless you read me or my former mentee Lynnley Browning you didn’t.)

            In 1996 I persuaded Bob Dole to make his return public — Dole got the point right away that a 1040 is not enough for the same reasons listed in my column above.

            Try thinking about this in the historical context in my column about the reasons this matters instead of what seems to be your assumptions, which are going to almost always be wrong no matter who you are.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            I genuinely did not know he was sole owner of Bain.

          • A_Real_Einstein says:

            Form 1040 (officially, the “U.S. Individual Income Tax Return”) is one of three IRS tax forms (see variants section for explanations of each) used for personal (individual) federal income tax returns filed with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) by United States residents for tax purposes.

            Income tax returns for individual calendar year taxpayers are due by Tax Day, which is usually April 15 of the next year, except when April 15 falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday. In those circumstances, the returns are due on the next business day. An automatic extension until Oct. 15 to file Form 1040 can be obtained by filing Form 4868.

            Form 1040 consists of two full pages (79 lines in total) not counting attachments.[
            He did not include the attachments which are somewhat irrelevant in his case.
            Your article is incredibly misleading and clearly below your own standard.
            Reminds me of not throwing the briefcase in the river but throwing contents of the briefecase, itself.

          • davidcayjohnston says:

            Ever heard the phrase a little bit of knowledge is dangerous? Read my column, which explains why a Form 1040 is not a tax return — and the courts have so held. Any tax law professor will tell you that. It is a form, a summary. Why do you think you are required to supply Schedules A,B,C,D, E., etc., as well as other forms and statements if they are necessary to show the basis for your entries on Form 1040?

            Your nonsense posts here reminds of the tax-deniers who say the income tax is illegal because Congress does not collect it [see Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes…]

            Would you be happier if I said Sanders had not released his complete tax return?

            Here: Bernie Sanders did not release his complete tax return, just two pages of it, leaving out the schedules, forms, statements and worksheets that explain how he and Jane arrived at the summaries on the two pages he did release.

            I marvel at your inability to grasp facts and your assumption that because you do not understand the issues — and you clearly do not — that my rounded, nuanced column that is both factually correct and gives historical context establishes (to you) that I must be corrupt. How to square that with my having written the toughest (and perceptive) pieces on Trump in the last year and my Sanders op-ed in the New York Daily News, and my other… well — sorry but your assumptions don’t square with the published record.

          • A_Real_Einstein says:

            If the IRS calls it a tax return then I am going to call it a tax return.

            Seriously? Why are going so far out of your way to impune this man?
            Why are you muting a political revolution that can truly save this country and return democracy to this country. Bernie is the cleanest candidate we have ever seen. When will we ever again have someone for the people like this. With the GOP in complete disarray what an opportunity we have.
            Has this what journalism has evolved into? I remember another Jewish socialist who walked the earth 2000 years ago.

          • ray jones says:

            You are you really are Disturbed it’s like finding out that Santa Claus doesn’t exist. If you think the truth will stop now…you can’t keep attacking other people’s characters and not think others are not going to ask questions about your own it’s just like the Republicans self righteous pious finger pointer did you find out they’ve got more dirt under rug! Feet of clay, you can’t take one article asking questions about Bernie’s finances.

          • A_Real_Einstein says:

            What truth? Would did you learn? What did you uncover. They asked for his IRS Form 1040? He gave them that. Nobody has asked him for anything more. If they want they can have it. Is this all you have?

          • A_Real_Einstein says:

            Silence as I expected. You are right. Breitbart was a low blow, you are working your way up to the Washington Times. Do you know Monica Crowley?

          • johninnv says:

            Mr Johnson, you will not change the minds of people who are unable to read and interpret facts and truthful dialogue regarding matters (taxes) that they refuse to even try to understand. I am educated in tax accounting and have always found your writing to be truthful, honest and accurate. If some people are too uneducated to understand what you say (and meticulously document) in plain English, then they should leave analysis to others who are capable of such understanding. I am a Bernie supporter, but will now either receive full disclosure or try to discern why he is not forthcoming and rethink my support. Thank You for your work!

          • dtgraham says:

            Your “facts” regarding Hillary will all be glowing and wonderful or Joe will give you a spanking and not publish them here.

          • ray jones says:

            Yet we all notice your dancing around a very straight forward process. And you can’t keep bringing up others…Bernie has not released his taxes. Obama released his taxes in 08′ and again in 12′.

          • davidcayjohnston says:

            You really do read with jaundice. On Jane Sanders, I was correcting the unfair and false impression in an otherwise excellent DailyKos piece I cited. How did you miss that?

            Did you read my long Sanders piece in the NYDN? My Clinton tax pieces in the NYT?

            And I chose what I write about and where I offer it. See the multiple forums where I wrote about Trump — NM, USAToday, Newsweek, etc.

            So your insinuation is nonsense. Every peer in every newsroom where I worked will tell you I self-direct, I do what I think is right and I also correct my own work when I err while also writing extensive — and results producing — press criticism.

          • dtgraham says:

            That was the DailyKos. The vast majority here probably were unaware of the article there. Why bring it up then? It’s a baseless accusation that no one here probably even knows about. So why mention it? You do a good Gene Lyons. Write a total hit piece on Bernie’s very minor tax issues (ignoring the Clinton Foundation IRS problems) and then drop in a blurb defending his wife on something. Then you can always go back to that and say, “see!” “See how fair and balanced I was?”

            The odd article critical of Bernie over something is fine per se. No candidate is perfect. They just never stop here, and there are no articles like that going the other way against Hillary.

          • Friedrich says:

            Why am I not surprised that you’ve worked in so many newsrooms!

  3. dtgraham says:

    This is nothing, and a hill of beans, compared to Hillary’s Clinton Foundation reporting problems, with it’s hint of undue influence, and her Wall St speaking fees issue for which she refuses to publicly disclose the content of the speeches.

    The Clinton Foundation had to redo a number of tax returns and get others audited after Reuters found that it had inadequately disclosed donations from foreign governments. The Foundation claimed that it received no foreign donations from 2010 to 2013, but Reuters reported that several foreign governments continued to give tens of millions of dollars to the Foundation through this 3 year period. These donors had not been disclosed to the IRS.

    These donations may have influenced her conduct as Secretary of State, the NY Times reported. The Times reported that Clinton’s agency signed off on a deal that gave a Russian energy agency control of a mining company with significant assets in the United States. The stakeholders in that deal sent millions of dollars in donations to the Clinton Foundation.

    Romney didn’t release his tax returns until September, 4 years ago. Bernie will get around to releasing his puny return. He’s not a man of wealth.

    • stellalimelight says:

      Then why not release them now. Amy does he have him buried 25 feet underground and it takes awhile to get to them? The point being made as Bernie lay some self to be honest and everybody else dishonest. So why not release them? I don’t understand why you shouldn’t be going yeah he should really something because there’s nothing there.

      • dtgraham says:

        Yes I think he should. You have to remember though that the National Memo turns anything involving Bernie into something awful or unacceptable, so I have my doubts about this. I haven’t heard about this from any other news source. If it’s mid-summer and he still hasn’t released the whole thing, we’ll talk.

        • ray jones says:

          Sounds like the same dodge game you attack the Clintons for…how is that halo?

        • davidcayjohnston says:

          There you go again with another baseless smear: “…I have my doubts about this. I haven’t heard about this from any other news source…”

          Most of my career my reporting has been way ahead of the curve, sometimes years ahead — and all of it has stood the test of time and subsequent scrutiny by competitors, grand juries, Congress, etc. See my 21 Questions for Trump published by NM last July. Or my coverage of the casino industry’s spread a quarter century ago or of the LAPD more than a third of a century ago when it was treated by journalists as a model of “world class”policing or….

          • dtgraham says:

            Good lord you’re full of yourself. I’m waiting to hear about this “controversy” concerning his unreleased tax return, 4 mortgages, and prior adjusted tax returns from any other media outlet before giving this any serious consideration.

            This anti-Bernie Sanders/pro-Hillary propaganda machine doesn’t cut it.

    • Otto T. Goat says:

      “Hint of undue influence”? The Clinton Foundation is a tax-free influence peddling operation.

      • ray jones says:

        Yet what does that have do with Mr. CLEAN SANDERS?? IT’S AN OPEN DISCUSSION THAT HE HAS PLAYED FAST AND LOOSE WITH HIS TAXES. OH YEAH YOU KNOW HIS DOESN’T CARE ABOUT MONEY? OR DOES HE?

    • ray jones says:

      Why would he need to get around to do something that done and if you playing Mr. CLEAN and screaming about his clean hands. Show us!! There has been rumors for a long time about Sanders family interesting money play.

      • dtgraham says:

        I read English and German, and I’m working on French. However, I have no idea what you posted. What in the hell does that mean?

        “Sanders family interesting money play?” (let alone the rest of it)

        • ray jones says:

          Rumors are that he is hiding money,assets, and created some funny jobs for family on the government, and campaigns. The numbers most likely are not adding up. Principles…honest.,.

    • Mr Corrections says:

      Every single thing you wrote is based on the Koch-brothers sourced conspiracy theories in Clinton Cash:

      http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/04/30/twenty-plus-errors-fabrications-and-distortions/203480

      None of it is true.

  4. Osvaldo Smash says:

    Jane Sanders took a 200k golden parachute fro Burlington College when she was forced to resign.

  5. CSG says:

    So important to state that Sanders himself has set the standard by pointing his finger at everyone else. He needs to meet his own standards. You know, glass houses and all that?

  6. dtgraham says:

    I just realized that the National — don’t vote for Bernie Sanders — Memo wants everyone to read this article so badly that it’s printed twice on the front display, and in close proximity to each other. When Bernie sandblasted Hillary last Saturday, I couldn’t find a story on it here for love nor money all of the next day.

    • davidcayjohnston says:

      Columnist here..,

      Your insulting post suggests I lack integrity and am motivated by anti-Bernie bias. Nonsense and I can prove it. Read my two-page spread in the NYDailyNews on how a large majority of Republicans favor the Sanders economic platform, as do even larger majorities of Democrats and Independents.

      For almost 50 years I have held officials in government, business nonprofits, religion and foreign powers to the same standards.

      • dtgraham says:

        Maybe, but you’re pulling the same crap here as all of the other National Memo writers.

        • davidcayjohnston says:

          What crap? Did you actually read my column? If you did you weren’t paying attention. See how rounded and historical it is. I even defend Sanders regarding Jane’s retirement account and how DailyKos reported on it without the context (and my own calculations) that I provide.

          When any candidate makes false claims, as 4 of the 5 candidates have, or acts deceptively, as 3 have, my job is to show you that and the reasons it matters.

          Maybe you prefer stenography. Our democracy suffers from too much of that.

          • dtgraham says:

            It’s always Bernie hit jobs here. Always. Never anything about Hillary. Never. C’mon david, give us something on Hillary.

          • davidcayjohnston says:

            so it seems that in fact you did not actually read my NM column nor my lengthy Bernie piece for the New York Daily News nor my Clinton coverage that sent her into a rage when my enterprising work showed how she broke her Village book proceeds pledge.

            Read first, then comment about what I actually wrote, not what you so wrongly imagine.

          • dtgraham says:

            Yes, I actually did read your National Memo column (this one). It’s the National Memo that we’re talking about right?

            You may be an anti-Clinton Ghengis Khan for other publications, but we’re talking about the National Memo are we not?

            For the National Memo, you’re unfortunately under the heel of Joe Conason, who won’t let you post anything critical of Hillary. Bernie, yes (all the time). Hillary, no.

          • Taelon says:

            im guessing you get your news from us uncut right? the favorite source for bernie bros, a website whose founder writes 1000s of pages about how Lee Harvey Oswald was a CIA asset

          • davidcayjohnston says:

            Your disregard or fact is frankly amazing. I’m not under anyone’s heel. I tell Joe and every other publisher or editor what I want to write, not the other way around. And unlike most journalists I have more work available than I can possibly do.

            The only editing I take — and I take it gladly — is for style; never my take on the verifiable facts I use or my opinion about those facts.

            So judge what I wrote on the basis of what is under my byline and not by my choice of outlet. And I see that after many words here you do not challenge a single fact, which does not surprise me, only where my piece was published.

            Here is a thought experiment for you. Imagine that I had placed this piece in the the policy journal Tax Notes, the Sacramento Bee/McClatchy, USA Today or the New York Daily News. Maybe that will help you develop a fact-based perspective about the important issues my piece examines while providing historical, legal and current context involving both major political parties.

          • dtgraham says:

            And Joe tells you, “sorry David…you’re free to write anything you want to, but not on this website.” “Oh, what’s that you say?” “It’s a Bernie Sanders hit job?” “Oh, of course then.” “No problem.” “We’ll even headline it twice on the front display.”

          • BostonHoundDog says:

            Investigative journalism is a lost art

          • davidcayjohnston says:

            Columnist here….

            It may surprise you that Investigative Reporters & Editors has a record 5,700 members. I’m it’s immediate past president and the current board president of the nonprofit Abd effective Investigative Post in Buffalo.

            The losses are in beat reporting by journalists who develop a deep understanding of everything from city hall to FERC. (My exposes of FERC would not be necessary if that very powerful federal agency had competing MSN beat reporters.)

            I have a chapter in the book “Investigative Reporting: Dead or Alice?” I also devote a lot of my time and money passing skills on to a new generation of reporters in America and around the world.

      • @HawaiianTater says:

        Hi David. What you’re looking at here is guilt by association. I’m not overly familiar with your work. It could be that you really are a good journalist who reports in an unbiased fashion. Sadly though, NationalMemo itself has largely become a Hillary Clinton propaganda site and you are being judged by posting your content here. Is that fair? No. But it’s understandable. It’s kinda like being the one fair and balanced reporter at Fox News. Sure, they might be a fine journalist but some people aren’t going to take them seriously because of where they are doing their reporting from.

        As far as Bernie’s tax returns go, I can’t speak for anyone else but it’s not something that particularly bothers me. I don’t see Hillary’s personal tax return transparency to be much of a bonus for her either. It’s all the non- tax return money she is associated with, especially from the Clinton Foundation, that bothers me. Some people might be okay with foreign governments donating to the Clinton Foundation and Hillary selling them weapons as Secretary of State but I am not. Same goes for all the donations from various industries (private prison, big pharma, private healthcare, banking, etc.) that her campaign receives donations from. How much those donations influence her is up for debate but I have a problem with the entire system. Our government no longer represents the people. They represent the billionaire class and us peons are only given the illusion of choice. They have rigged the game so that no matter who wins, they win, and we lose.

        I respect the fact that you stand up for yourself and stand by your work. Hopefully you are the journalist with real integrity that you claim to be. If so, you’d be one of the rare ones. I think anyone would be hard pressed to deny that journalists with integrity are a dying breed.

        • dtgraham says:

          Well said as always Tater.

        • Mr Corrections says:

          It’s friggin’ incredible that you people buy so whole-heartedly into the Clinton Foundation nonsense. Again, the ultimate source for all of those stories is Peter Schweizer, a former Bush and Palin employee, an infamous fake journalist, and the source of dozens of untrue stories about Democrats dating back decades. The book he wrote – Clinton Cash – which contains the Clinton Foundation stories is an excellent example of how far the Koch brothers (who paid for it) and Rupert Murdoch (who published it) are prepared to stoop.

        • JustaGurlinseattle says:

          Saudi Arabia, the country we have been selling arms to for YEARS, way before Hillary became SoS.
          Bill & Melinda Gates, Elton John, Steven Speilberg… ALSO Donate large sums, as does Norway, Sweden, and The Netherlands.
          This is what I HATE about Bernie Bro’s… attacking a family for creating a CHARITY that helps MILLIONS of people.. that is as LOW as it gets.

          • dtgraham says:

            If we’re now writing hit job articles on Bernie not releasing his full tax return yet, then the Clinton’s non-disclosure of foreign government donations and lying about it, is fair game.

        • JustaGurlinseattle says:

          Clinton Foundation Charity-

          https://philanthropy.com/article/Charity-Navigator-Removes/234700

          Foreign Government Concerns

          The Clinton Foundation was added to the list earlier this year after investigations by news organizations, including the Wall Street Journal and Politico, raised questions about whether corporations and foreign governments used donations to the charity to curry favor with then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

          The New York-based foundation faced intense scrutiny as Mrs. Clinton readied to announce her bid for the 2016 Democratic nomination for president. The foundation’s placement on the watch list was brandished by Clinton foes as evidence of mismanagement, or worse, at the eponymous charity.

          From the start, the Clinton Foundation challenged being added to the list. It wrote to Charity Navigator saying that there was no proof of wrongdoing in any of the news stories.

          “Our supporters donate to the Clinton Foundation because they want to see lives improved; they wanted better opportunity across the globe,” the charity wrote.

          Subsequently, the foundation took multiple steps to enhance transparency and avoid what it described as “even the appearance of a conflict of interest.”

        • JustaGurlinseattle says:

          https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478

          RATING: A
          Is this rating different than what you expected based on what the charity reports about itself or what other raters report about this charity? Read about what makes CharityWatch’s independent ratings different from other sources of information.

          Other Names

          Clinton Foundation
          Clinton Global Initiative
          Clinton Health Access Initiative
          William J. Clinton Foundation
          Charities often solicit donors under multiple names. CharityWatch is aware of this charity soliciting donors using the above names.

          Works to improve global health & wellness, increase opportunity for women & girls, reduce childhood obesity, create economic opportunity & growth, and help communities address the effects of climate change.
          Fiscal Year Ended 12/31/13
          Program Percentage : 89 % Overhead- 11%

        • davidcayjohnston says:

          Please do read up on my work (starting with the Wikipedia page others created about me). Also see my comment above.

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            It would seem that journalistic integrity is very important to you and you will fiercely defend yourself against critics who would suggest you don’t have it. I respect that. My criticism is not of you but of National Memo itself. It’s easy to forget that everyone who posts articles here are not of one hive mind when month after month and article after article is mostly biased pro-Hillary propaganda.

            Just answer me this. Why is any of this a big deal? You say that Hillary should be praised for being transparent about her tax returns and “Why Sanders would play games with his income taxes is a mystery.” but I’m a person who is more concerned with their policies and their actions during their careers. My top concerns in a politician are foreign policy and economic policy. On those issues, Bernie supports everything I stand for and Hillary supports everything I oppose. Why should I care about their tax returns when what matters to me is what they do while elected into office?

            Let’s look at foreign policy, for example. Hillary claims she has learned her lesson from the Iraq war but she wants to make the same mistake again in Syria. She wants to give even more aid and weapons to Israel when we already give them 3 billion a year. Her AIPAC speech infuriated me. Netanyahu could be considered a war criminal based on Israel’s actions against the Palestinians but Hillary wants to suck up to him by inviting him to the White House. Pope Francis and the UN supports a two state solution and so does Bernie. Hillary is very much right wing pro-Israel.

            Let’s take a look at the banks and income inequality. The banks are bigger than they were the last time they crashed the economy. Dodd-Frank is so toothless that it’s a joke. Income inequality is at it’s worst levels since pre- Great Depression. If we don’t take drastic action to address these issues, it’s not a question of it we crash again. It’s only a question of when. Hillary doesn’t want to break up the banks nor does she want to reinstate Glass-Steagall. Bernie has the opposite position.

            So tell me, why is it that I should care about tax returns when millions of lives hinge on who we elect for president? The difference between Bernie and Hillary could be the difference between more war during another Great Depression and an improving economy during a time of peace. Tax returns seems like such a minor issue in the grand scheme of things.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            Given the rest of your post, “biased pro-Hillary propaganda” seems to mean “refusal to publish baseless anti-Hillary smears”.

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            Dictionaries are your friend.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            They are, but I don’t see what that has to do with the fiction you just posted.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            Turns out I was right on the money. Well done, me!

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            As if anyone needed further proof that you are delusional, you’re now replying to yourself. Thanks for the laugh. And a good day to you.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            OK, thanks for coming here to demonstrate that you have no faith in Sanders himself and have to smear his opponent with easily disproved lies.

          • Ray Jones says:

            I have been reading every response in Mr. Corrections replies to your nonsense. You picked the wrong person to try to sell trash. He has beat you and you don’t have the good sense to just stop…you look life a fool.

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            There is a certain amount of admiration for someone who sticks by their fantasies.

          • Ray Jones says:

            It’s like watching a big loud mouth attack a smaller person then get his head handed to him in a fight. So it was good to see…

          • davidcayjohnston says:

            My column explains why tax returns should be disclosed – Nixon, Agnew, Romney and Trump. And we should get years of them.

            Saying you released your return when you did not – as with Sanders, Cruz and Kasich – matters because it tells us about character and it also raises the question of what you want to hide. Trump and Romney wanted to hide how they profit off the income tax that burdens the rest of us. What is motivating Sanders and why is his veteran spokesman not answering questions?

            Ask yourself this: what are the reasons Sanders is behaving this way abd what does that tell us about a Sanders presidency?

            Why would you hold Sanders, or anyone else, to a different standard? Like a pol or detest a pol, all of them should disclose their tax returns for numerous years, be forthright and be held to a uniform standard.

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            Let’s say for the sake of argument that you’re right and it’s kinda shady that Bernie has not released his tax returns. Aren’t their bigger issues at hand, like the ones I cited? I’m just saying, if he prevents more war in the Middle East and breaks up the banks so they don’t crash the economy again, I can live with a little shadiness on his tax returns.

      • A_Real_Einstein says:

        You embarrass yourself with articles like this. You obviously lack integrity and are no longer a journalist but a paid hit man and just another hack for the Clinton machine. A great demonstration why so many of us do not trust the media. You are so pathetic. How sad. Get a real job.

        • Mr Corrections says:

          Weird how you can’t seem to point to a single thing wrong with the article itself, and have to resort to personal attacks.

        • @HawaiianTater says:

          There are a lot of Clinton machine hacks at National Memo. I don’t think David is one of them. Look into his history a bit more. He’s gone after Hillary as well.

          • A_Real_Einstein says:

            I don’t care and stopped trusting the corporate media years ago. What was the purpose of this article? What did we learn? They just want someone to read a headline and get the wrong impression. The desperation is telling. He embarrasses himself with this.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            What “wrong impression” do they get from what appears to be an entirely factual headline?

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            Again, you should look into his history a bit more. A brief glance at some of his past articles will tell you that he is not the typical corporate media that we despise.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            Weird how you keep pushing (despite me informing you at least once previously it was completely fake) the corporate media’s Clinton Foundation conspiracy theories. Or maybe if Fox News is telling you what you want to hear, it doesn’t count as the most corporate of corporate media any more?

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            It’s hilarious that you think I watch Faux News. Thanks for the laugh.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            That isn’t at all what I said. I said that the Clinton smear you’ve been spreading comes from there, and that you’ve been told that previously plus provided with links to non-partisan sources that demonstrate this. You are doing the bidding of corporate media.

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            You are a blind sheep doing the bidding of the corporate establishment. Just because Republicans are evil doesn’t mean Democrats are saints. That’s the distraction they use for mindless fools like you when their corruption is pointed out. They scare you with evil Republicans to hide their own corrupt behavior. You are so terrified by the right that you fall for it every time.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            Ah, personal attacks in lieu of argument. The invariable response of a conspiracy theorist.

            You’ve been told that you’re spreading Koch/Murdoch propaganda, and provided with objective proof that it is so – and your response is to accuse other people of being sheep. Detecting irony is not your strong point.

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            In the world of you and Hillary Clinton, unflattering truths = personal attacks.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            You aren’t telling the truth. This isn’t even in question. The Clinton Foundation smears you are spreading – as you have been informed multiple times – come straight from Clinton Cash, were written by fake journalist Peter Schweizer, paid for by the Koch brothers, and published by Rupert Murdoch.

            http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/04/30/twenty-plus-errors-fabrications-and-distortions/203480

            You ought to be ashamed.

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            FACT: 20 foreign countries donated to the Clinton foundation.

            FACT: Clinton sold those countries 165 BILLION of weapons as Secretary of State.

            http://www.salon.com/2015/05/31/the_cash_donations_hillary_simply_has_no_answer_for_partner/

            http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187

          • Mr Corrections says:

            FACT: foreign countries donate to charities.

            FACT: the author of both of those articles is Sanders’ former press secretary.

            None of that changes the fact that you are spreading a conspiracy theory that the Koch brothers paid to create.

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            I can only present you with the facts. I can’t help you be any less stupid.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            OK, sorry you can’t back up your (totally false) claims! Better luck next conspiracy theory!

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            Proving to you that Clinton is a corrupt war mongering Wall Street puppet is like explaining evolution to Ken Ham.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            No, since it’s a baseless conspiracy theory, it’s more like “proving” fluoride in water is bad to someone who can read.

            Sorry you can’t back up your lies!

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            Well, as fun as it has been to mock your stupid, all good things must come to an end. Enjoy your delusions. I’m happy that they make you happy. If creating a fictional reality in your head is what it takes to get you through life, then good on ya! Sadly, I will not be wasting any more time on your fairy tales. Good day, sir.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            OK, sorry that you couldn’t once provide a single shred of evidence for your absolutely vile smearing of a charity what the hell is wrong with you.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            I’m sure you thought that meant something-or-other to people other than yourself, but it doesn’t. It also doesn’t excuse the fact that you are attacking a charity based on nothing but Koch-brothers-sourced insinuations.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            Yes, I’m fully aware that you’ve got zip and have to resort to baseless personal attacks; that’s what conspiracy theorists like yourself invariably do.

            You are smearing a freaking charity in an attempt to give your unelectable candidate a boost. How do you look at yourself in the mirror?

          • Mr Corrections says:

            OK sorry that you believe a right-wing conspiracy theory that Rupert Murdoch sold to you.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            OK sorry that you think that idiotically rambling in some way excuses your disgusting smear campaign against a charity. It doesn’t.

            I hope that helps!

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            If you give a man a fire, you can keep him warm for a night. If you light a man on fire, you can keep him warm for the rest of his life.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            See previous post.

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            Shush, Buck. No one cares.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            Sorry that you’ve got no sense of shame about the monstrous lies you are spreading about A CHARITY; no amount of insulting other people will cover up for that. You ought to be, as I mentioned earlier, ashamed of yourself.

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            Selling cupcakes out of the front of the shop does not justify selling heroin out of the back.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            See previous post; sorry you’re too foolish to understand that you’re working for Rupert Murdoch. Or rather – that you fully understand you’re doing that, but think that cheating for Bernie justifies it. Gross.

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            I should be ashamed for mocking stupid sheep. But it’s just so much fun! I think I’ll quit for now. Until next time, Buck.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            Yes, I get that you think insulting other people somehow excuses the fact that you are smearing a charity based on zero evidence. It doesn’t; you’re disgusting.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            PS: it’s still incredible that you call OTHER PEOPLE sheep, while credulously buying into a conspiracy theory that evidence unambiguously shows was created by the Koch brothers and Rupert Murdoch.

          • The lucky one says:

            Ahh, but those who can read already know that fluoride is harmful. Is that your meaning?

          • Mr Corrections says:

            Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha omg

          • Mr Corrections says:

            Oh, and FACT: no she didn’t.

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            Were you born this stupid or have you always been this way? Only a complete moron would reply to this comment.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            I love that you think that grade-school stuff works when you’re an adult. It doesn’t.

            Sorry you can’t back up your claims!

          • JustaGurlinseattle says:

            Fact, George Bush sold weapons to the SAME countries…

            Norway, Sweden, The Netherlands, Bill & Melinda Gates …
            ALL TOP Donors.. and you have the nerve to claim that it was for selling weapons?

            http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/sep/13/us-arms-deal-saudi-arabia

            The US Congress is poised to give its approval to the biggest arms deal in US history when it signs off on weapons sales to Saudi Arabia worth an estimated $60bn (£39bn).

            The sale, under negotiation since 2007, is aimed mainly at bolstering Saudi defences against Iran, which the US suspects will achieve a nuclear weapons capability within the next few years. The transfer of advanced technology, mainly planes, is to provide Saudi Arabia with air superiority over Iran.

            The Obama administration is due to send the deal to Congress in the next fortnight. The Senate and House then have 30 days to amend, cancel or approve the deal. If approved, the Obama administration can then take the final steps towards completing the deal.

            http://www.haaretz.com/bush-sold-arab-states-arms-in-violation-of-deal-with-israel-1.261106

            Bush Sold Arab States Arms in Violation of Deal With Israel’

            Israeli officials: U.S.-Arab deals involving F-15 fighter bombers, laser-guided bombs undermine IDF superiority

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            Did I make you think I’m defending Republicans somehow? They’re even worse than the Democrats. Let’s not forget that. My problem is with BOTH sides for selling billions in arms to foreign countries. I was never only blaming Hillary or defending Republicans. I’m against the entire war mongering establishment.

          • JustaGurlinseattle says:

            What a ridiculous thing to say… accusing a CHARITY of corruption is just LOWER than LOW.

            For starters, the Clinton Foundation has received a LOT of DONATIONS, BECAUSE it’s a freaking CHARITY, a CHARITY that Bill & Melinda Gates donate to…. they donate OVER $25 MILLION….

            Steven Speilberg, Elton John, as well as Norway, Sweden and The Netherlands.

            These are just some of the TOP donors.

            https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478

            The Clinton Foundation has been investigated by Charity Watchdog Groups, and have found NO WRONG doing. The Charity has a RATING of A… with only 11% going towards overhead 89% is used for the charity itself… that is one of the HIGHEST amounts, and shows they use their money wisely.

            and……..

            https://philanthropy.com/article/Charity-Navigator-Removes/234700

            “Our supporters donate to the Clinton Foundation because they want to see lives improved; they wanted better opportunity across the globe,” the charity wrote. Subsequently, the foundation took multiple steps to enhance transparency and avoid what it described as “even the appearance of a conflict of interest.”

            ______________________________________________________________

            Her family clearly could have left PUBLIC Life, and traveled around the world making money off speeches and living like royalty. Taking time for their OWN LIVES….. INSTEAD, they chose to use their celebrity and high powered connections and do something positive for people around the world, instead of being SELFISH, they chose to GIVE BACK…. and you want to bag on them, for that?

            It’s clear they are NOT doing it for the money, they are doing it for genuine care and compassion for people less fortunate.

            http://www.curvemag.com/News/Hillary-Clinton-Bernie-Sanders-AIDS-1030/#.VudPLrC3sLB.twitter

            The Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI) has helped over 8 million people living with HIV/AIDS obtain medication. CHAI strives to make treatment for HIV/AIDS more affordable and to implement large-scale integrated care, treatment and prevention programs.

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            Ah, yes. The old “hide the corruption behind the good cause” ploy.

            Sucker.

          • Independent1 says:

            Wow!! You’ve reached the point of having absolutely no decency whatsoever — is that what being a Bernie idiot does to you???

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            You’re so terrified of Republicans that you won’t even discuss the actual issues. I’d rather be a Bernie Idiot than be a blind sheep following a war mongering puppet of Wall Street.

          • The lucky one says:

            Me too, but you’re wasting your time tater. I learned some time ago that the Dem fundamentalists are at least as closed minded as the Repubs. Tribalism, plain and simple, though the Dems are more articulate than Repubs and less quick to resort to name calling they are just as nasty with those who dispute their views.

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            Thinking is hard. Sheeple get agitated when their views are challenged. It’s much easier to be told what to think.

          • Independent1 says:

            It’s got nothing to do with being terrified by the Republicans – it’s all about being convinced that Bernie Sanders IS NOT QUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT TODAY – THIS IS NOT 2008!!!

            The world is at a very dangerous stage today, just like we can’t afford to let one of the clown show candidates from the GOP get elected, we can’t let a senator WHO KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT GOVERNMENT OTHER THAN HIS PIGEON HOLE SPOT IN THE SENATE get elected just so he can spend the next 2 plus years trying to learn about foreign policy. We need a leader today who’s had years of experience dealing with the leaders of our allies around the world!!! And has already had experience in dealing with our enemies!!!!!!

            And a person who doesn’t know how to negotiate with people – who only knows how to shout people down in order to try AND GET HIS WAY, is not who we need as president!!

            When are you going to wake up to the fact that Bernie is just like Trump – someone who has to get his way or he’ll pick up his toys and go home. AMERICA CAN’T AFFORD THAT KIND OF LEADER!!!!!!!!!

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            The world is such a dangerous place today thanks in part to war mongers like Hillary Clinton. You don’t solve a problem by continuing to repeat the same mistakes that caused the problem in the first place. Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity. Iraq, Libya, now Syria, Hillary’s insanity keeps making the world a more dangerous place.

          • Independent1 says:

            You really believe that America having not been involved in the insurrections that have been taking place in the Middle East the past 6 plus years would have really prevented what we see in that area today after Bush riled up a hornets nest with his unwarranted invasion of Iraq???

            What fantasy land are you living in???

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            You get it right when you criticize Bush for his unwarranted invasion of Iraq. You get it wrong when you don’t extend that criticism to Hillary and the rest of the Dems who have the same foreign policy. Every time we go into a country in the ME and topple a dictator, something worse rises in their place. It happened with Saddam in Iraq and Gaddafi in Libya. Now Hillary wants to make the same mistake with Assad in Syria. We have to stop making the same mistakes over and over again. All we ever do is make things worse.

          • The lucky one says:

            Any “charity” that Gates donates to is immediately suspect.

          • A_Real_Einstein says:

            He has gone to the dark side.

          • Aaron Parr says:

            Have you? Why refuse to be critical of the candidate you support?

            We need to be harshly critical of all politicians. Sure, Hillary deserves the harshest light possible of anyone running right now, but Sanders also needs to be pushed and challenged.

            None of them are to be trusted, ever. Until you get this, you know nothing about politics.

          • A_Real_Einstein says:

            Challenge him on what? For providing his tax return? But to just make things up? If you want to challenge him on his record or his policy proposals that is fine. Let’s have that debate. But crap like this I expect from the right wing nuts. Just more evidence of the corruption that goes on both sides of the aisle and how the media and the establishment are in completely complicit. I hope you are proud of your party and your rigged primary process. Congratulations.

          • Aaron Parr says:

            You are grasping at straws here.

          • A_Real_Einstein says:

            I am grasping at straws? What am I supposed to be critical about? What was Bernie’s crime?

          • Aaron Parr says:

            No one said there was. So yes, that is a straw you are grasping at.

          • A_Real_Einstein says:

            You must be confused. I am saying he has done nothing wrong. What are you talking about? What did he do that was wrong?

          • Aaron Parr says:

            Still going on with this canard? The article spells it out. The article does not cite Sanders with wrong doing. The article levels a valid criticism, which raises questions that need to be considered. This is called challenging a candidate. Its an important part of politics and what journalists are supposed to do rather than anoint candidates or act as their pundits.

          • Livegreen says:

            I agree with Aaron. And we definitely have our disagreements. Any candidate must be willing to face criticism and be willing to address it. Policy and political responsibility are primary, not a cult of personalities (on whatever side it might be).

          • davidcayjohnston says:

            To be clear, I do not work for DemocracyNow! (or any TV show), but appear as an unpaid guest just as I have on CNN, MSNBC, BBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, AlJazeera, Thom Hartman, Glenn Beck, etc. If you believe in robust debate you appear wherever you are asked (except for the delusional).

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            I said “works with”, as in appears on their show. It was probably a poor choice of words. Besides, I asked you a much longer question in this thread that you have failed to answer but you responded to a comment where I was defending you? lol okay.

          • dtgraham says:

            Any ‘going after Hillary’ by David won’t appear here though.

        • davidcayjohnston says:

          Right and that’s why I wrote this:

          http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/david-cay-johnston-agree-bernie-sanders-article-1.2521997

          You clearly have no idea what you are posting about, not a clue.

          Mrs, Clinton went into a rage over my reporting here:

          http://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/19/business/spending-it-it-takes-a-president-to-overpay-the-irs.html

          Read those and you should realize what you wrote above is nonsense.

        • nathkatun7 says:

          Sanders is not a saint!

          • A_Real_Einstein says:

            Maybe he is not but he is the only candidate truly for the people and not the corporations. Unlike Hillary he is not on the take.

          • nathkatun7 says:

            Does that include the corporations that manufacture guns? There is absolutely no evidence that Hillary Clinton is “on the take.” Bernie Sanders has been in Congress for more than two decades. Other than talk, what exactly has he done concretely to get rid of corporations? Personally, I am so sick of the holier than thou purity progressives who are so oblivious about the complexity of the American political system. I am absolutely certain that if Bernie Sanders is elected President, he will quickly face the reality of the limits of Presidential power. The corporations he is fond of demonizing will still be around by the time he leaves office.

  7. Otto T. Goat says:

    Bernie was recently spotted driving a $170,000 sports car.

    http://i.imgur.com/jUHEMVj.png

    • dtgraham says:

      The man has been a mayor, a congressman, and a Senator for 4 decades. Those aren’t poorly paid jobs. He’s not Sheldon Adelson, but he must have a few bucks by now. Anyway, how do we know it’s not rented? The guy’s away from home a lot and must rent his share of cars.

      • Otto T. Goat says:

        His lack of private sector experience is part of his problem.

        • dtgraham says:

          His sports car isn’t though. You’re going to be writing for the National — don’t vote for Bernie Sanders — Memo soon?

          • Otto T. Goat says:

            How is a car like that good for the environment, or consistent with his views about wealth redistribution and the poor?

          • dtgraham says:

            More expensive cars generally have better emission standards.

            The democratic socialist philosophy doesn’t say to tax the rich back to the stone age. They’ll still be rich. Just less rich.

            Franklin Roosevelt and Ted and Bobby Kennedy were all very wealthy men, but look what they advocated. There are still rich people in Sweden and Denmark.

          • nathkatun7 says:

            All the men you cited were not socialists.

          • dtgraham says:

            That is a very hard term to define precisely.

          • nathkatun7 says:

            It’s really not that hard. FDR was a conservative Democrat on social issues. It was his wife, Eleanor Roosevelt who pushed hard for Civil Rights. His New Deal Economic programs were aimed at reforming capitalism and not getting rid of it entirely. FDR’s signature accomplishments, like the Social Security Act, were limited in scope. Neither JFK nor RFK were socialists! Compared to Hubert Humphrey, JFK was a centrist liberal Democrat. I worked in RFK’s 1968 Presidential campaign and I don’t remember him waging a war against corporations.

          • dtgraham says:

            Bernie doesn’t wage a war against corporations either. He also doesn’t want to get rid of capitalism. Amazingly, capitalism still exists in Scandinavia, the rest of western Europe, and Canada. It just works better for the common person there.

            He thinks that the banks, which have cheated and defrauded the country, should have been prosecuted properly, regulated properly, and should now pay a financial transaction tax to help fund other things. This tax was once imposed in America and is common elsewhere.

            He also thinks that Roosevelt’s Glass-Stegall act should be reinstated, but that hardly constitutes a war on corporations.

    • davidcayjohnston says:

      Nonsense

  8. Stuart_Levine says:

    David–You’re right, of course, but only partially right. Here’s why: Even the full and complete returns may not reflect taxes paid as a percentage of income. Take Mitt Romney (Please!). The percentage of income shown on his returns did not reflect the substantial income and growth in value of his and his wife’s IRAs. They amounted to about $100M (that’s not a typo) and got that way because the Romneys used offshore IRAs employing “blocker” corporations to purchase, at preposterously low prices, the carried interests that Romney valued at $0.00 when making his Section 83(b) elections. See this GAO report: http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/666595.pdf

    • davidcayjohnston says:

      Stuart Levine,

      You are conflating wealth and income. A tax return like it or not, measures realized income as define by Congress.

      And I’m the journalist who revealed that $100 m trust fund for the Romney sons in which the campaign — in writing — acknowledged no gift tax was paid because they used a deal trigger mechanism. I wrote about the Romney IRAs, too, describing them as a tax planning mistake.

      The carrie interest is smell beer. The tax dodge is in the deferral.

      • Stuart_Levine says:

        First, while I agree that a “A tax return . . .measures realized income as define[d] by Congress,” it is not my “conflation” that’s the problem. Rather, it is the media’s conflation since the media does not inform the public that the Romney IRAs (thus, the Romneys) undoubtedly realized a good deal of income over the years, but that income is not reflected in any way on their tax returns. Hence, the reported percentage of their income that they pay in taxes is misleading.

        Second, I would agree that the tax dodge is primarily is in the deferral, but not entirely. After all, even absent the depositing of the carried interests in their IRAs (i.e., the biggest part of the deferral), the Romneys would still have had substantial savings via IRC § 83 since Mitt’s compensation via carried interests would have been transmuted from ordinary income into capital gain income.

        • davidcayjohnston says:

          your complaint isn’t with my reporting – I’ve explained all that – it’s with others. So complain to them.

          • Stuart_Levine says:

            I will (and have). Let me be clear: I did not intend to direct the criticism against you. You do a great job explaining technical issues to a larger public.

  9. Daniel Delvecchio says:

    Here you go, unless he made billions of dollars over the last year he seems to have lived a pretty normal life of a typical non-corrupted senator. Seriously, Google is your friend.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/06/30/on-tax-returns-sanders-and-wife-report-200000-in-income-mostly-from-his-senate-post/

  10. Daniel Delvecchio says:

    Lol the Editor-in-chief of this Website (Joe Conason) has written books about the Clinton family. Obviously there’s no bias on this website’s perspective. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hunting_of_the_President

    Here’s Sanders Tax returns, stop and use google.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/06/30/on-tax-returns-sanders-and-wife-report-200000-in-income-mostly-from-his-senate-post/

    • davidcayjohnston says:

      Mr. Delvecchio,

      Your post makes a false statement about Bernie’s tax returns and is based on a false assumption, namely that Joe Conason tells me what to write. Bernie has not released his tax returns, which you should understand if you actually read my column.

      As for your attack on my integrity — anyone who worked in any of the newsrooms (NYTimes, LATimes, Philadelphia Inquirer, Detroit Free Press, San Jose Mercury) where I spent four decades as an investigative reporter will tell you that I was self-directed in my investigations and that I told editors what I was going to report on and then did it my way. And I did my work without regard for my personal welfare. Look up my pioneering coverage of LAPD political spying, abuses and brutality that undid its reputation as the world’s most effective and ethical police department was not at all what my LATimes editors wanted, ultimately ruining my career there. But no one familiar with that or my other work, not even people who were the subjects of my investigations, accused me of lacking integrity, which is exactly what you do in your comment above smearing me.

      Please read my numerous National Memo columns on Trump — covering issues no one else has until recently and then drawing on my work — or on the poor quality of right-wing commentary or other issues and my work for all of the other places that I write for and you will see that I am an equal opportunity critic. Read my exposes of FERC for AlJazeera America or my columns at Reuters on Romney’s taxes or my Columbia Journalism Review piece of Jan. 29, 2001, that was the first to show that the Obama administration of transparency was not going to become reality or anything else from the record I have built, all of it signed.

      If you can show any error in my work it will be corrected promptly and forthrightly. No one in the many hundreds of comments on this piece here, published Friday afternoon, and cited at other websites has suggested there is any factual error, by the way.

      So why did I write this piece for National Memo rather than one of the many other organizations where my work appears these days? Because I thought the audience at National Memo would benefit most from the important facts about not just Sanders but all five remaining candidates and the critically important history, which took place before the vast majority of Americans alive today were old enough to vote. That is, I picked the outlet, not the other way around. I could have placed this piece at a variety of places eager to publish my work.

      Like so many others who post comments these days, you operated from an assumption, which is never smart and usually results, as your post does, in drawing baseless conclusions.

      • dtgraham says:

        We don’t care what else you’ve done. If it’s going to be published here it can’t be critical of Hillary, and an attack on her opponent is very welcomed by Joe Conason. Had you wrote something critical of Hillary in some way, Joe would not have allowed it here.

      • lroom says:

        I only found your article today and I have to say it was fair and balanced. Most of the media has not pointed out anything about Sanders that wasn’t super positive and its nice to find someone who can show both sides to a story.. I enjoyed this comment of yours even more. It’s getting pretty annoying to hear every person out there who isn’t over the top for a candidate being accused of being a paid shill.

        • dtgraham says:

          If you want the media to point out things about Bernie that aren’t super positive, just stick around here. You’re at the right place for that my friend. It’ll be a smorgasbord for you.

  11. Kevin Kevins says:

    Bernie is a freaking crook thats why hes not showing his taxes

    • davidcayjohnston says:

      Nonsense — and not within 100 miles of what my column says.

      • ray jones says:

        Yet it seems odd…

      • A_Real_Einstein says:

        That is exactly the impression your article gives. You are a hack. You ruin your career with garbage like this. Time to retire. You are no different than the rest. Journalism is a joke and now so are you. Bernie is the only candidate for the people, why impune him this way? Why mute the movement? What is in it for you?

        • davidcayjohnston says:

          Actually, what you want is for me to be a hack. Read your own words:

          “Bernie is the only candidate for the people, why impune [you mean impugn] him this way? Why mute the movement? What is in it for you?”

          You want me to be an advocate for Bernie or else look the other way. What you object to is honest reporting of facts that you wish could be swept under the rug.

          Ponder Cassius from Shakespeare’s Julius Ceaser, speaking about duty not to your friend seeking power, but to the republic and to preserve equality among all citizens:

          “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
          But in ourselves, that we are underlings.”

          • A_Real_Einstein says:

            Look the other way? I don’t care who you support. Just have some integrity and don’t go out of your way to write BS. What great benefit did the reader get from your hit piece. Other than you being dishonest and a very desperate attempt to have a negative headline against Bernie what have you accomplished? You insult our intelligence and demonstrate how you completely lack journalistic integrity. Good day.

  12. monarda says:

    My understanding is that whatever their tax return may have stated, the Clintons’ evaded taxes, through the use of shell companies and dubious charities.

    • Mr Corrections says:

      Yeah and they have all their political opponents murdered too!!!1

    • Ray Jones says:

      Proof?? Yet we see all 20 years of their taxes? What’s Bernie’s tale?

    • Mister Wirez says:

      You’re a fkn liar.

    • Independent1 says:

      Total BS!!!!!!!!! No couple in America has had their finances scrutinized to the extent of Bill and Hillary – and despite all that scrutiny – NO ONE has been able to find any wrong doing!! Why are you making this stuff up???

    • davidcayjohnston says:

      If you have ANY ACTUAL evidence of that please send it to me by mail at 285 Council Rock Ave., Rochester NY 14610-3333.

    • nathkatun7 says:

      You holier than thou purity progressives behave like right wing teabaggers. You go around spreading lies hoping to fool gullible people.

  13. john foster says:

    Lmao, “Hillary deserves pros for doing the right thing”, you know it’s sad when someone has abused and exploited the system/people so much that when they actually do something the right way they deserve “props”.
    Let’s give Hillary Clinton props for not lying, stealing, exploiting or using corruption for self benefit because we all know these opportunities don’t come often.

    I just want let you know you are doing much more harm then good. Me and many of my friends and family who are Bernie supporters have decided to not support Clinton if she wins the nominee. Reason being this disingenuous, disgraceful, and just embarrassingly desperate clinging to anything with the smallest potential of casting a spec of dirt on Sanders name in an attempt to distract from Hillarys humiliating record.

    THEN, when Bernie present clear facts about Clinton’s record he’s threatened with the declination of another debate simply because HIS TONE. His fucking tone, really? Not to mention in 2008 she said anyone running for the Oval Office should want to debate and Hillary herself said she would debate ANYTIME, ANYONE, ANYWHERE.

    Now that this has been exposed, she’s trying to turn the blame on Sanders saying he declined her offers. Which once again is just disingenuous. She purposes to do the debate on the same night as New Yorks Syracuse team is competing for the ncaa finals. How convenient that once again she wants to have a debate at the lowest viewership possible, just like Debbie Wasserman the head of the DNC and Hillarys 2008 campaign organizer who openly supports Hillary still had done. Why only 6 debates instead of 26? Why on nights people are likely to be out or nights of other big TV events?

    It’s disgusting, disgraceful and even pathetic that Hillary and the establishment is sooooo worried that Hillary can’t win the nomination on her own without the support and repression of voters by the established. You should be humiliated and ashamed that you put the will of rich corporations, businessmen and politicians over the will of the people. Even worse, our only potential planet able for humans to sustain life as we know it and life in general, our home.

    • JustaGurlinseattle says:

      So, you don’t CARE that Bernie LIED about campaign donations, as a way to SMEAR Hillary, as a character attack?

      http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/money-big-oil-isnt-always-what-it-appears-be

      MSNBC’s report noted
      that Clinton has not “taken any money from PACs tied to the oil and gas
      industry, or companies themselves.” Lobbyists with at least some
      connection to the industry have made contributions, but the bulk of that
      money has gone to super PACs that Clinton cannot legally control.

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/04/02/fact-checking-the-clinton-sanders-spat-over-big-oil-contributions/?tid=pm_politics_pop_b

      The Pinocchio Test

      The Sanders campaign is exaggerating the contributions that Clinton has received from the oil and gas industry. In the context of her overall campaign, the contributions are hardly significant. It’s especially misleading to count all of the funds raised by lobbyists with multiple clients as money “given” by the fossil-fuel industry.

      Three Pinocchios

      • dtgraham says:

        “but the bulk of that money has gone to super PACs that Clinton cannot legally control.”

        She could have publicly denounced and disavowed them. You know, like Bernie did. She can control that. A Super Pac is not going to form and come into existence for a candidate who trash talks it daily and denounces it. Like Bernie.

        • JustaGurlinseattle says:

          That would be STUPID to denounce any Super Pac at this point.
          The Koch Bro’s have a $880 MILLION DOLLAR Super Pac,
          that is ready to be used in the General election… This does NOT include any other Super Pacs, like Karl Roves…. nor does it include what the nominee will receive in individual donations.
          That means, as it stands NOW, it will cost MORE than a BILLION DOLLARS for EACH candidate.

          Denouncing ANY help now, would be cutting off the nose, to spite the face.

          Hillary has said, that she has a litmus test, for Supreme Court nominees.. and that is overturning Citizens United.
          Until that is overturned… I want the Democrats to play the game TO WIN, at all cost.

        • JustaGurlinseattle says:

          Bernie is being a child, if he thinks he is going to be able to compete by taking in $50 Million a month… The Republicans will LAUGH him out of the game… He needs to get OVER the purity, and be in it, to win it against the Republicans.

          Those poll numbers Bernie has now.. those will be long history, if he wins the nomination, the VERY next day, the Republicans are going to SMEAR him, like there is no tomorrow.

        • JustaGurlinseattle says:

          Remember back in 2000, when Al Gore was NOT Liberal enough? He was a Corporatist… etc.. etc. Yes, he was called the same things that Hillary is being called.

          Imagine if Nader would NOT have pulled those votes from Gore, and Al Gore won the Presidency…. can you imagine the Global Warming policies we would already have had in place by now?
          Global Warming policies that we DESPERATELY need.
          But, instead of Gore, we had Bush… and we are still picking up the pieces.

          Perfect, is the enemy of GOOD.

          That election proved that, BIG time.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            Also, the odds are that Gore wouldn’t have ignored terrorism warnings from the outgoing Clinton admin, and hence no 9/11.

          • The lucky one says:

            You like to fantasize don’t you?

          • Mr Corrections says:

            Why would Gore do what Bush and Cheney did, and ignore the warnings based purely on their spite for the Clintons?

          • The lucky one says:

            Bush/Cheney ignored the warnings due to their arrogance and possibly because they knew a major event would galvanize the public and let them pursue their agenda in Iraq. Presumably Gore lacked the agenda but he has ample arrogance. Maybe he would have acted differently, neither you or I know how it would have played out. He may have not been able to do anything had he chosen to. I try to stick with reality and leave the hypothetical to novelists.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            The only reason 9/11 happened was Cheney and Bush ignoring warnings solely because they came from the Clinton admin. It’s incredibly unlikely that Gore would have done the same, because he isn’t a Republican.

          • The lucky one says:

            I’m not going to defend the debacle that their admin was but you have no idea what Gore would have done or not done. 9/11 wasn’t solely due to their incompetence. We have been creating the situation for that to happen under both Repub and Dem presidents and continue to do so today.

          • The lucky one says:

            Or imagine that Gore had not rolled over and conceded to the illegal shenanigans in Florida. Don’t blame Nader for a poorly run campaign by Gore, the fact that he is a stiff and a corporatist and the dirty GOP tricks and unethical SCOTUS actions.

            Gore is also a flaming hypocrite. He flies all over talking Green but has a bigger carbon footprint than a small city.

          • The lucky one says:

            He was also called a pompous gasbag, not so with Clinton.

          • Jim Hyder says:

            Most folks don’t call a bitch what she is, but I will. She has lied her way all across the spectrum and has qualified as such by her own admissions. She can’t keep from adding a ringer in her speeches too that ar clearly not a lie, but twisted way off keel. The bitch is good atit too.

          • The lucky one says:

            I don’t disagree with your assessment and yet… she is immensely preferable to Cruz or Trump but that is lowering the bar quite a bit.

        • Independent1 says:

          When are you Bernie nuts going to grow up????

          • The lucky one says:

            Or maybe he voted his conscience rather than the party line, no worries about Clinton there however. She will toe the Dem establishment line all the way, but why not. The Dem machine and it’s bankrollers have been very good to her.

          • Independent1 says:

            Yeah! I guess that’s what explains why Bernie is a fraud and is no where near the progressive he claims to be. See this article from TheWeek and it doesn’t even include Bernie’s failure to support an immigration reform package:

            Bernie Sanders is not nearly as progressive as you think he is

            Just a lead in excerpt:

            But evaluated on the basis of his own lengthy record, Sanders is not as progressive as he makes himself out to be on at least three big issues: guns, criminal justice reform, and — despite the Iraq vote — foreign policy.

            http://www.theweek.com/articles/603044/bernie-sanders-not-nearly-progressive-think

            And maybe that explains why NOT ONE of his fellow Senators thinks he’s really qualified to be president: 40 Senators have endorsed Hillary and not one has endorsed Bernie – explain that one too huh!!

            From the NYTimes:

            Bernie Sanders Stands Alone as Hillary Clinton Gains Senate Endorsements

            Democrats say they find Mrs. Clinton — the former first lady, senator from New York and secretary of state, who has raised millions of dollars for them over the years — simply more qualified and more electable. Their position is underscored by Mrs. Clinton’s 47-percentage-point trouncing of the self-described democratic socialist in the South Carolina primary on Saturday. Mrs. Clinton prevailed in three of the first four primary states.

            http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/29/us/politics/bernie-sanders-stands-alone-as-hillary-clinton-gains-senate-endorsements.html?_r=0

          • The lucky one says:

            “Bernie Sanders is not nearly as progressive as you think he is” I don’t doubt that for a minute if by “you” you mean some Sanders supporters. However he is clearly far more progressive than the bankster’s darling Hilary.

            “Democrats say they find Mrs. Clinton …who has raised millions of dollars for them over the years — simply more qualified and more electable.” I also don’t doubt that since the ability to raise money is the primary criterion for their support.

          • Independent1 says:

            Why am I not surprised that you take things the way you do – selfishly.
            Hillary being willing to spend her time helping other Democrats (which includes progressives) get money to help them win their elections and try to get control of Congress back in the hands of people who care about the middleclass, proves she’s a team player.
            While in contrast, the article about Bernie not being a progressive shows that many times Bernie has been a loner and unwilling to help the Dems win on progressive issues like expanding gun control, reforming immigration and many other issues. Bernie has failed in helping enact progressive issues time and time again!!!!!!!

          • The lucky one says:

            Yes and seemingly more powerful Dems like Clinton have failed as well to enact progressive issues, I won’t say time and again because mostly they have not tried very hard to do so. Getting re-elected is the primary goal which unites nearly all repubs and dems. HRC is a team player but the middle class is not the team she plays for.

          • Independent1 says:

            A total nonsense post: Since 1996, the Democrats have had precious few opportunities to pass any progressive legislation given that they have only had 3-5 months (in 2009) where they had sufficient control of the Senate to override Mitch McConnell’s use of the fake filibuster which he used over 425 times.

            And those 3-5 months were around the death of Ted Kennedy which killed the Dems super majority about one month after they got it in July of 2009 when Al Franken was confirmed as a senator. About one month later on 8/15/09 Ted died killing the super majority which was lost when Mass. elected Scott Brown to replace Ted. So they had precious little time to pull together any comprehensive legislation that could have been enacted given that Congress was in the middle of hammering out Obamacare.

            But during that time there were several instances where the Dems got support even from our Republican Senator Collins and could have enacted some progressive legislation, but sadly cowards like Bernie and even some Dino Democrats elected in somewhat red states blew it when for example they refused to support expanded background checks on guns.

          • nathkatun7 says:

            How long has Sanders been a member of congress? What progressive issues did he enact?

          • The lucky one says:

            Where did I say he has? I pointed out that other Dems have fared no better.

          • nathkatun7 says:

            So, if Bernie Sanders, in his 26 years in Congress, has been un able to lead in enacting “progressive issues,” does that mean he did not try “very hard to do so”? Why are you giving him a pass and blaming “other Dems…because mostly they have no tried very hard to do so.” Obviously, like other politicians, that he is now attacking, “getting re-elected to Congress must have been his primary goal.”

          • The lucky one says:

            “getting re-elected to Congress must have been his primary goal.” Maybe but at least he has tried and has not changed his stance every other day like some we know. For invading Iraq then against it, for TPP then against it. No politician is completely honest, very few humans are but he is way above the others.

          • dtgraham says:

            Spoken by the one who literally told me recently that health care could be made affordable for all by private insurance companies competing in the marketplace through the exchanges and, “NOT BY GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS.” (you capitalized it)

            I frankly don’t know anymore what kind of liberal/progressive you are, but I can see why you love Hillary so much.

          • Independent1 says:

            I didn’t say healthcare could be made more affordable for all by private companies competing – that’s not what I said at all. I said the premiums that insurance companies charge for health care insurance are more affordable in states that have embraced ACA and have more companies competing for their business. Making healthcare itself more affordable is something that ACA is doing by forcing healthcare providers to implement more efficient procedures for providing healthcare and for ensuring that when they fix a person’s particular illness that person doesn’t get a different illness from just being in their healthcare facility.

            And implementing these fixes to healthcare across the nation, especially in states that have refused to adopt ACA, is going to take time. And that trying to move to single-payer before a lot of these fixes get fleshed out, is not going to accomplish very much and may has been shown by many states – to drive healthcare facilities and doctors and other providers out of business.

            This has been shown especially in many GOP led states that have used their single-payer status with Medicaid type coverage to edict what they will pay for certain healthcare before giving facilities and providers time to reduce their costs, and even here in Maine there are hospitals, mental health facilities land pharmacies closing their doors because they cannot provide adequate healthcare at what idiots like any GOP governors think are the correct costs.

            I don’t have one bit of problem with what Bernie is wanting to do – my only problem is his timing – I don’t think this is the right time; and I have a problem with Bernie only being willing to support legislation that is to his every liking. He’s got to be willing sometimes to support legislation that may have some things in it he doesn’t completely like in order to at least get some of what he wants. If he’s not willing to do that It’s not likely he’s going to get much of what he’s campaigning on legislated.

          • Jim Hyder says:

            Have you bothered to READ the bills he didn’t vote for?
            Yeah I thought so.

          • Independent1 says:

            Why? Are you trying to prove my point that if legislation isn’t exactly the way Bernie wants it he’ll pick up his toys and go home?? Or are you just like Bernie, and you have the misguided notion that there aren’t times when you have to accept what you think isn’t the greatest in order to get something that really needs to get passed?? Stop making excuses for Bernie’s failures in voting for legislation most independents and progressives felt was critical!!!

            I constantly get emails from Susan Collins and Angus King saying they voted for legislation that had provisions in it they weren’t supportive of.

          • dtgraham says:

            Who worked with Mccain on trying to fix the VA? It’s the opposite. He has a history of working with Republicans where he can. Bernie and Jim Inhofe are friends.

        • Ray Jones says:

          bernie hasnt denounced Rove or Koch brother money against HC he knows they have been running ads against HC.

      • Jim Hyder says:

        That is from WAPO’s estimate. You know they just LOVE the Clintons too?
        Take yer Pinocchios and play with them..

    • Mr Corrections says:

      I love that you people straight up state you care more about getting your way than Roe vs Wade or civil rights. It really makes you think.

      • dtgraham says:

        What???

        • Mr Corrections says:

          Do I need to use smaller words? I get that – like all conspiracy theorists – you’re not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed.

          • The lucky one says:

            And like those who denigrate the poster rather than debate the ideas you are not all that sharp either.

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            They aren’t capable of rational policy discussion. It’s all superficial attacks with no substance.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            I invite you to read through that guy’s post history, and then mine, and see who is denigrating whom. That is, if you’re not too terrified of fluoridated water to come out from under your bed.

          • The lucky one says:

            I don’t know about his post history but your comment about me being terrified about fluoridated water coming out from under my bed makes reading your post history unnecessary. Drink all you want bud, I could not care less, as long as that poison isn’t foisted on me.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            You LITERALLY SAID THAT FLUORIDATED WATER WAS DANGEROUS.

          • The lucky one says:

            Yes I believe it is. If you choose to ingest it I have no problem with that or wish to prevent you from doing so. Even if fluoride is beneficial to tooth enamel as some contend, others disagree, then applying it with a mouthwash that can then be spit out makes a lot more sense than ingesting a known toxic substance. I brush my teeth but i don’t swallow the toothpaste.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            OK sorry that you believe nonsense; not my problem, though, and my throwaway comment about your paranoia was obviously completely justified.

            Have fun cowering under your bed hiding from the imaginary problems!

          • The lucky one says:

            I don’t cower from anything, nor do i take stupid risks that have no gain. Keep believing what the heathcare industry tells you and that fluoride is a magic bullet that will do what you want without side effects. It’s easier than thinking and you will be a good customer for them.

          • dtgraham says:

            That guy’s post history is private and locked out. How did you manage to read through that guy’s post history Mr Liar?

          • dtgraham says:

            Yeah bright boy, President Sanders would do away with abortion rights and civil rights. Sure he would. He consistently polls better in matchups against the remaining Republicans than Hillary does.

            Stop with the Bernie can’t win narrative. None of the polls have ever showed it. It’s Hillary that ties Cruz and loses to Kasich in the latest inter-party matchup poll. Bernie swamps them all. Anyway, Trump is the likely nominee and polls also show Grumpy cat beating him.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            OK sorry that you are functionally illiterate. That, of course, is so remote from what I said that I actually wonder how you cope with daily life.

          • dtgraham says:

            “I love that you people straight up state you care more about getting your way than Roe vs Wade or civil rights. It really makes you think.”

            OK, so what does that mean? No one has ever “straight up stated” that.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            That’s EXACTLY what you are saying if you claim you’ll refuse to vote for the Democrats if they don’t select Sanders – the less popular candidate – over Clinton.

    • Independent1 says:

      Wow!! You Bernie nuts are just as crazy as many of the right-wing wackos posting on this thread!! Where do you get your moronic ideas????

      • paulyz says:

        I am actually quite surprised that a Socialist as you do not support Bernie, & rightly call him a nut. Either you just figure Bernie hasn’t any chance of winning, or there is hope for you yet. Most likely the former.

    • Independent1 says:

      Hillary and Bill Clinton have done more for people needing help in America and the world than Bernie Sanders has ever dreamed of?? When are you clueless idiots going to wake up that Bernie isn’t even qualified to be president?????

      • Jim Hyder says:

        AND, Clinton Corp. has made a lot of money doing good too. Otherwise they wouldn’t have the billions of dollars in their combined coffer.

      • dtgraham says:

        Anyone who is university educated and has been a civil rights activist, Mayor, Congressman, and Senator for 5 decades is obviously qualified to be President.

    • ladywalker68 . says:

      And I will never support a man who wrote about rape fantasies of abusing women.

      • airTHATiBREATHE says:

        But you will support a woman who supported her husband’s actual sexual exploits and the woman who attacked the woman he harmed? WOW!

    • CrankyToo says:

      “Me and many of my friends and family who are Bernie supporters have decided to not support Clinton if she wins the nominee (SIC).”

      Whenever I see a sentence that starts with the word “Me”, I figure something dumb is right behind it. Never start a sentence with “Me”!!!! It makes you sound stupid!

      And, if you consider yourself a Democrat, Liberal or Progressive (your choice), never tell anyone that you’re going to stay home rather than pull the lever for Hillary. It proves that you’re stupid!!!

  14. smh says:

    So I’m supposed to take this Johnston guy seriously? Great analysis there, guy. lol

    “Hillary Clinton’s family’s charities are refiling at least five annual tax returns after a Reuters review found errors in how they reported donations from governments, and said they may audit other Clinton Foundation returns in case of other errors.”
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-taxes-exclusive-idUSKBN0NE0CA20150423

    • dtgraham says:

      Exactly. Bernie’s 4 mortgages and his yet to be filed full tax return though, bring up spectres of Agnew and Nixon in one of Johnson’s paragraphs.

    • Professor_Peacock says:

      Hillary Clinton doesn’t run the Clinton Foundation.

      • Mr Corrections says:

        You don’t understand – they benefit from it, somehow, in some nebulous fashion that cannot be articulated! That’s why (easily disproved conspiracy theories)!!!!!1

        • Professor_Peacock says:

          Silly me!

          • Mr Corrections says:

            I find it hilarious that there are people claiming that Hillary did (x) because someone gave money to the Clinton Foundation, because how does that benefit the Clintons themselves? The Clintons have never drawn a wage for any of the work they do there, so what is it that these people think is happening?

          • Professor_Peacock says:

            STUFF is happening. Obviously.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            Possibly even related to the BAD THINGS Trump was talking about yesterday.

          • dtgraham says:

            Not sure, but they certainly got rich in a hurry after being, “broke coming out of the White House.” Even if it was just quid pro quo in return for strictly benign charity donations, it still shouldn’t have happened. You’ll have to ask that Russian energy agency what was happening.

            That was the reason for the pledge not to accept any foreign government donations to the Clinton Foundation when she was Secretary of State. The pledge that she lied about. She lied to Obama about that and I’ve read that Obama wasn’t aware of her private E-Mail server either. I don’t know whether she lied about that too or not, but she needed to disclose it.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            So no facts, just insinuations. Weird! Almost like a conspiracy theory or something!

          • dtgraham says:

            Just facts, and insinuations based on facts.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            Nah, just insinuations based on debunked right-wing lies. It’s shameful, the depths to which you are stooping.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            Here are the tax filings and accounting data for the last 18 years of the Clinton Foundation and affiliates; have at it. Point out where any money has gone to the Clintons.

            https://www.clintonfoundation.org/about/annual-financial-reports

            Oh wait, you can’t, because that’s a lie.

            EDIT: it’s the last 18 years, not the last 12.

          • dtgraham says:

            Oh, is that the same Foundation that lied to Obama and the IRS about not accepting any foreign government donations when she was Secretary of State? Well, that must be accurate.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            That isn’t actually true, and has zero to do with your earlier claim that the Clintons are taking money from a charity.

          • dtgraham says:

            It is true.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            Sorry you can’t seem to find any evidence for that outrageously false claim, and – again – it still has nothing to do with the other falsehood you are peddling: that the Clintons have ever taken a single dollar from this charity.

          • dtgraham says:

            Not peddling, just wondering. There are reasons for the wondering.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            Yes, the reasons are you’re a zealot. “Just asking questions” is, of course, the standard line from a conspiracy theorist that knows they have no evidence for their claims and must rely on insinuation.

  15. Professor_Peacock says:

    I see the bat signal went off that someone might have said something that wasn’t glowingly deferential to Bernie Sanders.

    Re: the article, thank you for explaining what exactly got released and what didn’t.

    • dtgraham says:

      “I see the bat signal went off that someone might have said something that wasn’t glowingly deferential to [Hillary Clinton]”.

      Fortunately for you, you don’t have to worry about that possibility here. Every article here is glowingly deferential to Hillary Clinton and a glowing takedown of Bernie Sanders. Enjoy.

      • zorro037 says:

        The problem with Bernie is that he think of himself one kind of Saint but you can’t play holier than you when your account isn’t complete. people enjoy talking bad about Hillary but at least she show her tax returns with all the annex demanded by law.

        • Marti Salvato says:

          Oh man, and so much more than it even customary. Good for her! This supplements the public release of the family’s tax returns from 2000–2006 during her 2008 campaign, returns from 1992–1999 disclosed annually during her husband’s time in the White House, and prior returns released by her husband’s presidential campaign. All told, the Clintons have made their tax returns public for every year dating back to 1977.

          As the returns detail, since 2007, the Clintons have paid $43,885,310 in federal income taxes. In the two most recent years, 2013 and 2014, the Clintons paid an effective federal tax rate of 35.4 percent and 35.7 percent, respectively. When accounting for state and local taxes, the Clintons’ combined effective tax rate was 44.6 percent in 2013 and 45.8 percent in 2014.

          Since 2007, the Clintons have also made $14,959,450 in charitable contributions. In 2013, charitable giving represented 11.4 percent of their income. In 2014, it represented 10.8 percent.

        • dtgraham says:

          She lied about her foundation though. She also lied to Obama about the E-Mail server that she would be using as Secretary of State. Probably to use a private one in secret in order to make contact with foreign governments about Clinton Foundation quid pro quo. You know, those foreign governments that she swore the Foundation would be taking no money from when she was Secretary of State. She lied to Obama and the IRS about that.

          • zorro037 says:

            you have right to your opinions, but please don’t tell me things that you already know is not true. General Powel used one and Condoleeza Rice also used private accounts. The classification of the mail was after not before. But I recognize you the right to be opposed to Mrs. Clinton bit please don’t use the chain of lies that Republicans and Bernites has been using.

          • dtgraham says:

            I’m not naive about why Hillary used a private server and hid her E-Mail address from even Obama and Rahm Emanuel for so long. When Emanuel eventually asked for it, he was told that only the Secretary could release it and he needed her authorization. I’m assuming that he eventually got it.

            Like Bernie though, I’m also not worked up about this. The nation has much bigger issues. It’s just that if an unreleased Bernie tax return is now a major National Memo scandal, then it’s fair to bring these things up.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            “It’s fair to bring up conspiracy theories if anyone questions the Purity of the One True Candidate”

          • Mr Corrections says:

            Please link to the evidence that she “lied” about the Clinton Foundation.

            Oh wait, you can’t, because it’s a nonsense attempt at smearing her.

          • dtgraham says:

            http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/more-money-more-problems-a-guide-to-hillary-clintons-cash-scandals/391299/

            I could have provided 100 more of these links.

            Now link to the evidence that she didn’t. I can play your game too. Don’t just give me a liberal pro Clinton site though.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            Again, that contains ZERO evidence, and merely repeats the falsehoods directly from the book. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Oh, right – you’re a conspiracy theorist.

          • dtgraham says:

            Everything contains zero evidence that doesn’t perfectly align with your beliefs.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            Personal attacks don’t make up for the lack of evidence for your smears. Those smears are, once again, of a charity; it’s disgusting.

      • Professor_Peacock says:

        I don’t feel the need to hound forums anytime someone said something about Hillary Clinton that’s mean, untrue, harsh but true, etc. I’m perfectly comfortable with my candidate, both her strengths and her weaknesses.

      • Mr Corrections says:

        And here you are, responding to the bat signal by repeatedly spreading Clinton Foundation conspiracy theories that you know full well are false.

        You are a disgrace.

    • Marti Salvato says:

      Now *that’s* funny! Thank you.

    • Marti Salvato says:

      I would love to use this on Twitter. You mind?

    • Joan says:

      Only those who actually ” feel the Bern” can determine what standard Sanders should be held too, donchaknow? In the meantime to even insinuate that Hillary is not evil incarnate is just wrong, naive, and unintelligent. ( snark alert)
      It was not Bernie who lost my vote for him- it was his supporters.

      • dtgraham says:

        Really smart. Forget the platform and what the candidates stand for. Just go by the supporters, who in this case are only trying to impart some perspective onto an incredibly biased pro-Hillary propaganda website. It’s voters like you that give the country the government it too often deserves.

        • Joan says:

          The fact that you see all of Bernie’s rabid supporters as ” only trying to impart some perspective” when they harass and name call is very akin to Mr Trump saying that his violent supporters are “very passionate”. Then you ice the cake with your parting shot proving my contention for me. I will vote for the ultimate democratic nominee because anything else is unthinkable. If I am voting for Bernie it will not be with ” joy in my heart” and you can thank yourself and your ilk for my tepid leaver pulling. ( not that anyone votes like that anymore).

          • dtgraham says:

            Yeah, because Hillary’s supporters never, ever, name call, and name calling is the same as Donald Trump’s physically violent supporters. Sure.

            “Then you ice the cake with your parting shot proving my contention for me.”

            What???

          • Paragryne says:

            Hillary supporters aren’t doxxing and harassing Super Delegates for not supporting her.

          • dtgraham says:

            No wonder they aren’t. When you lose a state by 60 percentage points and then claim 9 of the 17 super delegates from that state, I wouldn’t be either.

            They also gained most of the super delegates from New Hampshire despite losing by 31 points. That’s been happening all over. I wouldn’t be doxxing or harassing anybody either if I was a Clinton supporter.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            Super delegates can vote how they please. That rule – WHICH TAD DEVINE, THE HEAD OF SANDERS’ CAMPAIGN, IS LARGELY RESPONSIBLE FOR DESIGNING – does not excuse doxxing anyone.

          • Paragryne says:

            Or, it could be that her supporters have infinitely more class.

            She’s winning. Say it with me – President Hillary Clinton.

  16. WQuaid says:

    In Hillary’s speech to Wall Street she said she was tired of Wall Street and the banks taking all the blame for the meltdown. (She demanded transcripts be made in her contract with them). Any doubt about Hillary’s total lack of integrity at this point is pointless. How do I know? I’m BATMAN!

    • Mr Corrections says:

      So thing with actual evidence about Sanders is irrelevant, but baseless smear about Clinton is OK. Got it.

    • Independent1 says:

      Really?? What kind of Bernie nut are you??

    • davidcayjohnston says:

      WQuaid, the transcripts are a valid but separate issue. If Bernie won’t release his returns why would anyone else? Walk your talk, be held to inform standard and don’t make it easier for others to hide their tax returns.

      • dtgraham says:

        He said he’ll release them. Unlike Hillary who won’t release any Wall St speeches until everybody else does. You wrote that column at the end of March. Jumping the gun just a little? Obviously he needs to release the full return eventually (sooner the better) but this isn’t close to being some kind of a scandal at this point. In one of your paragraphs, you started talking about Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew in relation to this. You’re trying to subliminally leave the impression that Bernie just might be in that class? Christ man.

        • A. D. Reed says:

          You don’t get the difference between tax returns — everyone’s obligation to pay taxes — and the content of speeches given to private groups? The reason everyone knows that Hillary gave speeches to Wall Street bankers IS BECAUSE SHE RELEASED HER TAX RETURNS SHOWING THE INCOME.

          Why does Bernie refuse to release his?

          • dtgraham says:

            Oh good. Maybe then she can also release the speeches. Oh wait, she won’t? Damn.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            What does that have to do with anything A. D. Reed wrote?

          • dtgraham says:

            “and the content of speeches given to private groups?”

            From A.D. Reed.

            I know you don’t really have problems with these things. You just fake it, like the game player you are.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            See previous post.

    • Earlene Hammond says:

      That is interesting! So who does she want to take the blame for the meltdown? Oh yeah, probably Bernie! It could never have anything to do with her husband repealing Glass-Steagall, you know!

  17. Lara Meringue says:

    This is such a bogus attempt to smear him. Hold him to exactly the same standard as all other candidates.

    If he gets the nomination I’m sure he’ll release more tax returns. Right now he’s trying to win it.

    When did Mitt Romney reluctantly release part of only two years – at the very end! How many did Sarah Palin release? Two years!

    • CrankyToo says:

      Yeah. And how’d Romney and Palin make out in their pursuits of the Oval Office?

      • drdroad says:

        Exactly! Why would Sanders wait until he’s the Democratic nominee?? Why would we think he’ll release more then?? Disturbing.

    • Teresa Welby says:

      he is being held to the same standard. Did you read the article? Hillary has released her complete records.

    • davidcayjohnston says:

      Lara Maringue you should read my 2012 columns on Romney and his taxes and my recent New York Daily News column on how must GOPers actually favor the Sanders economic plan. This is not a smear. It is holding Sanders to the same standard as everyone else and my work, all signed and most readily available on the Internet, shows that.

    • Charles Winter says:

      If there is an issue, Sanders can make it disappear tomorrow with a note to his accountant.

      • dtgraham says:

        There isn’t an issue. Not yet anyway. This is just a special National Memo issue. You know, from the same website that hates fake Clinton scandals but loves fake Sanders scandals. He will be issuing that note soon I’m sure.

      • Earlene Hammond says:

        What if he doesn’t have an accountant? He and Jane haven’t been home long enough to take care of it.

      • cleos_mom says:

        But as some of the posters here keep reminding us, this is a candidate too pure and holy to associate with anyone as “establishment” as a CPA. His wife does his tax returns and presumably chops all the wood and hauls all the water.

    • Raul Antonio Noguera-McElroy says:

      You mean holding him to his own standard? He’s the one who has run on being honest and transparent.

    • splashy79 says:

      You are comparing him to the right wingers? How about comparing him to Clinton instead?

  18. Leftout says:

    No one should have to release their IRS data. These are personal property and belong to no one else.

  19. airTHATiBREATHE says:

    The Clintons have been far more charitable. . . Johnston should look into where the $$ is coming from to the Clinton Foundation. $5M from Saudia Arabia and $ from other countries. It’s easy to be charitable when it’s not your money. Yet she charged $200K to a children’s charity for a speech last year!!!! Charitable?

    • Teresa Welby says:

      She has given away more money to charity than what she was paid by those speaches to wall street. Look it up.

      • JosefLowry says:

        The Clinton Foundation slush fund does not help those it purports to. Just ask Haitians.

        • Mr Corrections says:

          The Clinton Foundation that you are baselessly smearing has an “A” rating for transparency from CharityWatch. It is not a “slush fund”, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself for your insinuations that are being levelled at – again – a charity.

          • JosefLowry says:

            The Clinton Foundation takes money from countries and corporations & then Hillary worked for those companies & corporations while Secretary of State. That is why Hillary did both her State Dept. biz & The Clinton Foundation biz on the same server in her basement & erased The Clinton Foundation emails before turning it over to the government. One example is Saudi Arabia donating millions to the Clinton Foundation, then State Dept. works on its behalf getting a $35-50 billion oil refinery contract in Haiti: https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/6356

          • Mr Corrections says:

            This claim is simply false in its entirety, and you still haven’t explained how the Clintons benefit from money given to a charity. The Clinton Foundation stopped accepting donations from foreign governments while Clinton was Sec. of State. The emails you linked do not contain anything at all damning, and do not contain any comments from Hillary Clinton. Additionally, Hillary Clinton has vocally supported women’s rights in Saudi Arabia, which would be exceedingly odd if she was in their pay.

            You are repeating baseless right-wing smears of a charity. It is disgraceful.

      • Earlene Hammond says:

        Wow! You Clinton supporters are totally brainwashed as well as gullible. Their personal returns and the foundation returns have been audited by the IRS for things like forgetting to include things like payments from foreign governments. Their net worth is about $159 million compared to Bernie’s at about $300 thousand, so I doubt there is much to worry about with him because wealth and greed are not on his list of priorities, unlike so many others in politics! It is a lot easier to hide stuff when there are millions involved anyway. It is amazing how much wealth the Clinton’s have accumulated in the fifteen years since they left the White House proclaiming they were broke! I could give you a reason as to how that probably happened, but I doubt you want to know. I wouldn’t want you to be disillusioned or anything!

        • Mr Corrections says:

          “How dare you guys try to defend an institution that does nothing but help the poorest people in the world?”

    • Svarun says:

      Here we go again. Tax returns and accounting data of the Clinton Foundation and affiliates for the last 18 years are available on line

      https://www.clintonfoundation.org/about/annual-financial-reports

      Is there any evidence that any money has gone to the Clintons?.

  20. TheCornerstone says:

    My god you Hillbots are panicking. You are DESPERATELY looking for something to hit Sanders with now that he is gaining on Clinton. If you trolls actually read the article Sanders says, “We will release them as soon as possible.”

    And to me, that’s a legitimate statement. I don’t know if you have noticed but, Sanders was relatively unknown until his run for president so it doesn’t surprise me that he hasn’t released his tax returns to the public. It’s an unnecessary hassle, especially if NO ONE was asking or even wanted to see them until now.

    I have full confidence that Sanders will release them in a timely manner, especially when he says, “We will get out as much information as we can…we will get it out as soon as we can.”

    If he really had something to hide, why would he say he is planning on releasing them? He would have gone the Clinton route and made some BS claim that he isn’t going to do it “until everyone else does” (republicans included).

    This is such a minor issue, yet Hillary’s camp is latching onto it like it’s a massive scandal.

    And for all the conspiracy theorists saying that he takes money from “dictators”, and that’s why he doesn’t release them, I dare you to go look at how much Sanders makes per year and then compare that to his assets (car, house) etc. The man is clearly not rich, so that claim falls flat on its face.

    • Susan says:

      So release them. She released 23 years. His wife’s too.

      • dtgraham says:

        I agree that ideally he should have released it as soon as possible, but the beginning of April is still too early for this to be any kind of a scandal.

        • @HawaiianTater says:

          You should join me over at TruthDig. The comment sections there would be more to your liking.

          • dtgraham says:

            Haven’t heard of TruthDig but I’ll be checking it out.

          • dtgraham says:

            Susan Sarandon. Liking it already.

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            Be sure to watch the Jimmy Dore vids I posted in the comment section.

          • dtgraham says:

            I’ll look for it.

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            Can I expect to see you around the place? I’m getting a bit tired of it here, for obvious reasons.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            Yeah, it SUCKS when people call you on your baseless smears and conspiracy theories. I imagine.

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            lol

          • Mr Corrections says:

            The fact that the Sanders campaign is openly encouraging this stuff is incredibly disappointing. Speaking as someone who started off a Sanders supporter, I have to say I’ve lost all respect for the man.

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            Here. Learn something. Or continue being a sheep. *shrugs* Makes no difference to me. http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/01/the-lies-of-neoliberal-economics-or-how-america-became-a-nation-of-sharecroppers/

          • Mr Corrections says:

            What does that drivel have to do with the ridiculous and totally debunked lies you were spreading about the Clinton Foundation? Why do you keep calling other people sheep while spreading the fictions the Koch brothers and Rupert Murdoch sold you?

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            There is more to life than a single issue. Are you so simple minded that you can’t learn about other topics? How disappointing.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            The fact that you keep moving the goalposts when confronted with iron-clad proof your outrageous claims are totally wrong doesn’t really make me take you at all seriously, you know? The fact is that you simply don’t have the balls, let alone the knowledge, to make a single concrete claim of wrongdoing on the part of the Clinton Foundation.

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            I’m not going to keep repeating myself. Deny the facts all you want. It’s no concern of mine. Let’s see if you deny reality on other topics too. Like our upcoming economic meltdown. You got the brains for it or not? http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/01/the-lies-of-neoliberal-economics-or-how-america-became-a-nation-of-sharecroppers/

          • Mr Corrections says:

            I haven’t denied a single “fact”. You can’t make a concrete claim of wrongdoing because you know it would be too easily disproved; you rely instead on just implying that something bad is happening. You are a coward.

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            I guess you truly are too stupid to discuss something as complicated as the economy. That’s exactly what I expected. Thanks for proving me right. http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/01/the-lies-of-neoliberal-economics-or-how-america-became-a-nation-of-sharecroppers/

          • Mr Corrections says:

            OK sorry you can’t make a single actual claim about the charity you are smearing and just keep linking to paranoid drivel that other people have said. I’m sorry that you live in fear of being called out on your terrible opinions, but at least you know they’re terrible; that’s probably about the most we could expect from something like you.

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            How about oligarchy? Or do big words hurt your brain? http://www.businessinsider.com/major-study-finds-that-the-us-is-an-oligarchy-2014-4

          • Mr Corrections says:

            I’m sorry, you seem to think I’m interested in clicking on random crap you link to. What I want you to do, coward, is put your money where your mouth is. Say something that you think the Clinton Foundation has done that is wrong. Use dates and numbers, like a big boy.

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            We’ve already been through this. You’re not going to get any less stupid if I explain it to you again. I’ve already embarrassed you on one topic. It only makes sense that you don’t want to get embarrassed on other topics, like the crashing economy and the oligarchy that the USA has turned into. But please, feel free to show your awesome knowledge of economic issues if you can.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            Craven. You badmouth a charity and you don’t even have the balls to back it up. What a disgusting waste of skin you are.

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            Just for fun, I will explain this to you one more time. This is the last time, so pay attention. Foreign countries donated money to the Clinton Foundation. Hillary’s state department then sold billions in weapons to those countries in return. These are facts. Whether or not the money donated to the charity was used for a good cause is entirely irrelevant. The weapons were most certainly not used for a good cause. They were used to kill people. Unlike you, I happen to value life, which is why I am opposed to the USA profiting from the death and destruction caused by weapons sold to foreign governments. It’s you who is the disgusting waste of skin if you think a few million in donations to a charity justifies selling weapons to terrorists. Here’s a novel idea: take all the money used to build those weapons in the first place and donate THAT money to the charity.

            You’re going to deny it again, just like the predictable broken record that you are, but I don’t care. I’ve explained this to you for the last time. Everything that needs to be said about this topic has been said.

            Now, either prove me wrong by showing me you are intelligent enough to discuss this http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/01/the-lies-of-neoliberal-economics-or-how-america-became-a-nation-of-sharecroppers/ or prove me right that you’re the brain dead moron that I’ve always known you to be. The choice is entirely yours but I’m not going to waste any further time on a brain dead moron.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            OK sorry, you seem to be regurgitating the same debunked conspiracy theory yet again. Name names. What country donated, and what did they gain? When was this? Point to the part in the tax returns where Clinton received money from the charity.

            Oh wait, you can’t do any of those things, because all you have is dumb lies.

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            I gave you the opportunity to prove me wrong by showing you are capable of intelligent economic discussion.

            As expected, you chose to prove me right by choosing the brain dead moron response.

            And like I said, I’m not going to waste any further time on a brain dead moron. You had your chance.

            Also, as expected, you’ll reply to this by repeating the same brain dead moron talking points. But here’s the fun part… I will not be reading or replying anymore. So, not only have you proven yourself to be a brain dead moron, now you will be proving yourself to be a brain dead moron who is talking to himself. Isn’t that fun?! You just can’t stop yourself from proving me right! Good times.

            Have fun talking to yourself, ya brain dead moron. Adios.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            OK sorry that you can’t STATE A SINGLE CASE OF WRONGDOING BY THE CHARITY YOU ARE SMEARING, you piece of garbage.

          • dtgraham says:

            I’ll check it out for sure. This Clinton/Sanders thing has soured me on this website, but I’ll probably still hang around. You get used to all of the posters here, and I’d miss This Week in Crazy. Could eventually change my mind on that though. truthdig is looking good.

          • @HawaiianTater says:

            No reason ya can’t do both lol

          • dtgraham says:

            No reason at all. For now, Bernie needs us to defend him here.

        • Susan says:

          How about the previous years? What’s your excuse for those?

        • Raul Antonio Noguera-McElroy says:

          Didn’t Clinton release hers in July of 2015?

    • Charles Winter says:

      Ok, maybe he hasn’t finished his 2015 return yet. He can still release previous years. All he needs to do is send a note to his accountant.

      • TheCornerstone says:

        I doubt he even has an accountant. He said his wife Jane does their tax returns so if I were to guess, they are on their home computer or shoved in some dusty filing cabinet.

        • Raul Antonio Noguera-McElroy says:

          Oh good, then he or his wife can take the few hour drive to their house one evening while campaigning in NY, pull them out of the dusty cabinet, and show them to everyone.

          • TheCornerstone says:

            I’m confident he will stay true to his word and release them in a timely manner, since you Hillbota are so lustful for any kind of dirt on him.

          • splashy79 says:

            He’s had a whole year! Not so timely.

          • William West says:

            ummmm… you don’t get to file 2015 taxes until the year 2015 is over

      • ray jones says:

        He can go online to the IRS and printout returns from the past. Its clear he is hiding something, how wealthy, investments, rate of taxes which we already guess is not paying a normal rate.

    • A. D. Reed says:

      It would take me 30 minutes to release the past 10 years of my tax returns. They’re in folders, marked “Taxes 2007”, “Taxes 2008” etc. all in a file cabinet in my home office. I would just need to unstaple them and scan them to make copies. So when the man says “We will release them as soon as possible,” it makes me wonder, “Why is it so impossible to release them now, this week?” Does Jane not keep a copy for herself and her husband?

      Why the delay? I don’t think for a minute that Bernie has anything to hide, so why is he hiding behind “We will get out as much information as we can … as soon as we can.”? Please explain why he can’t get out all the information now!

      And did you bother reading the article yourself? “The Clinton route” is to release all tax returns, in full, with no hemming or hawing or delaying or blaming it on her spouse’s bookkeeping habits (“Jane takes care of that stuff!”). Mrs. Clinton has had no problem releasing all her taxes (and her husband’s) for the past 23 years of their public life; why is it so hard for Mr. Sanders to do so.

      • Earlene Hammond says:

        If you don’t think he has anything to hide, then why make such a bfd about it! Has it occurred to any of you that maybe he just doesn’t get home too often with all the campaigning he has been doing? Why be such nit-pickers about the small stuff? On the other hand, I’m sure the Clinton’s have some very high-priced, creative accountant on retainer who can easily accommodate any wishes to provide copies for their major wealthy clients! Talk about transparency! You definitely are.

      • William West says:

        he still has 14 days to file his taxes lol

    • Mr Corrections says:

      “gaining on Clinton”.

      Was this in some alternate reality where she doesn’t have an insurmountable lead?

    • Sam Brees says:

      LOL “timely manner” — he’s been running for president for almost a year. What is Bernie hiding and why won’t the revolution call him out.

    • Paragryne says:

      He owns a farm. Maybe he’s getting tax payer subsidies like other members of Congress. Just saying.

  21. William Kaufman says:

    This is ridiculous. The man gets a salary as a US Senator. He owns a house. What do they expect to find, a horde of cash from drug smuggling? He should just hire someone to release the returns and put an end to this desperate gotcha politicking from the sinking Clinton ship.

    • Susan says:

      He owns multiple houses. Has investments, his wife’s assets. He should just release at least five years worth. Clinton is 2.5 million votes and 200 + regular delegates ahead. She will win NY and CA. She’s good. Don’t worry about her. He still needs to release his tax returns. She has released 23 years.

    • davidcayjohnston says:

      Columnist here…

      Please read my column and see the reasons it matters. History of the issue is high up. Sanders is also helping those, like Trump, Kasich and Cruz, who are not forthcoming, just as Romney was not. And Sanders mislead people, which goes to character.

      • dtgraham says:

        Why don’t the Clinton Foundation IRS problems matter?

        Here’s a little something about you:

        On September 26, 2008, Johnston said: “If you look around, you’ll notice that banks are still making ordinary loans to ordinary businesses. Your mailbox is still full of proposals to sell you credit cards and extend you debt. The Internet still has ads for these very toxic mortgages that are at the heart of this. They’re being advertised all over the Internet.”…”And my point is not to argue that there is or is not a crisis, but that journalists need to begin not by questioning around the edges but by going to the core question. Is this the least expensive way to do this? Are there market solutions that might be applied?”[12]

        On September 26th 2008, you didn’t even know that a crisis was happening, and furthermore you thought that the market would sort things out, even though governments around the entire world were correctly applying Keynesian stimulus packages, including the Obama administration. Spoken by the registered Republican you are.

        • Mr Corrections says:

          They don’t matter because they’re a simple tax misfiling which has already been corrected, and not evidence of an impossible conspiracy.

          I hope that helps!

          • dtgraham says:

            Like the simple fact that Bernie’s full return has not yet been released at the beginning of April? The simple fact that this is irrelevant and doesn’t constitute a scandal?

            I hope that helps!

            P.S. Their pledge to not accept any foreign government donations when she was Secretary of State was not a simple misfiling. It was important for obvious reasons and she lied about that pledge.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            OK sorry that you can’t seem to find any evidence that she “lied” except wingnut propaganda. Also, Hillary doesn’t actually run the Clinton Foundation, and their taxes are prepared by accounting firms, not the Foundation itself. Let me know if you need any other basic concepts explained using small words!

          • Truth Hertz says:

            Salon is the definition of wing nut propaganda.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            Be fair; it’s not as bad as HuffPo (which publishes anti-vaxxer tripe). Not yet, anyway.

          • Truth Hertz says:

            Or AlterNet.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            Salon is garbage. Sorry that you can’t find any evidence except fact-free articles written by Bernie Bros.

        • davidcayjohnston says:

          DTGraham, your post above establishes that have no idea what you are writing about. Your bizarre post made me laugh out loud.

          Years earlier — in 2003 and 2004 — I was one of the few writing warnings about unjustifiable mortgages.

          So I am perceptive enough to spot the tsunami building years before it crests and after it does you write that I was clueless. LOL.

          You can read my retrospective about the watchdogs whose barks no one listened to (and the reasons why) in various places, but most cogently in my chapter in the book “Investigative Journalism: Dead or Alive?”

          Your post is also bizarre given the fact that I have often pointed out that unless someone disproves basic economic accounting identities then Keynes is spot on about government spending making up for a decline in private spending during economic contractions.

          What you quote were remarks aimed at getting people who are not steeped in economics to understand the ridiculously overblown claims aimed at justifying Hank Paulson’s demand for ~$700 billion with no retroactive review allowed. They were outlandish claims. And “is or is not a crisis” is a rhetorical phrase invoked to keep my audience focused on the bank welfare issue.

          What Paulson wanted (and largely got, but with the possibility of review) Keynes would not have supported. I was arguing against bailing out OWNERS and MANAGEMENT of banks that failed. We have a well-tested system to take over failed banks, usually on a Friday after they close so that Monday they are open again, but with current management gone and shareholder equity wiped out. Today the TGTF banks have a much larger share of banking than they did in 2007 and are awash in liquidity while many other enterprises and people are starved for cash flows.

          You might also want to read about the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission autopsy at the University of Missouri – Kansas City, where I was a featured speaker along with the commission chairman and its staff director. If what you wrote above was even slightly sensible they would never have invited me.

          I also laugh because I am usually accused of being a die-hard Keynesian, a leftist, a hater of corporations, all of which are as much nonsense as your post.

          I suggest you read all of my work on corporate welfare, which was also years ahead of the curve, including my book Free Lunch. Paulson got his friends welfare, not a Keynesian stimulus. On the other hand the Making Work Pay policy of Obama was Keynesian and it worked.

          To understand the difference you might want to study up on accounting identities and why they are crucial to understanding economics in general and Keynes in particular.

          BTW, the crisis began in August 2007, almost 14 months before the date you cite above, as those of us had warned of bad banking pracices (and were ignored) understood, realizing that more trouble was on the way, as it was.

          • dtgraham says:

            Your juvenile insults and childish hyperbole won’t change your own words, which clearly indicate that you were out of your depth on the financial crisis in 2008.

            One of the reasons why you failed to grasp the enormity of what was happening is because you were, “questioning around the edges and not going to the core question.” You talked about surface, superfluous things in that quote of yours that I provided. You said that you didn’t want to argue whether or not there was a crisis. Actually you badly needed to be arguing that there was indeed a crisis. Of course to you, the mere fact that your mailbox still had credit card offers in it was apparently indicative that things might not be so bad.

            Almost everyone connected to that bailout knew that the top banks were in very deep trouble. You, on the other hand, thought that market forces might save the day. The market was in absolutely no position to help cash desperate banks at that time The TARP administrator at the time, Neil Barofsky, said that it became obvious as soon as he took the job that these banks weren’t healthy and viable. One of the many complaints of the bailout is that the rate of lending slowed down after the bailout. The main reason for that is pretty simple. Many of them needed the money just to survive. It became a broken promise that taxpayer funds would only be handed to viable banks, because it had to be.

            Now after the money was handed out, things should have been handled far differently of course. Federal regulators have missed so many deadlines for the required implementing rules, and the financial industry has seriously undermined Dodd-Frank. They’ve lobbied regulators to delay and weaken rules in various ways. Suing, freezing agency budgets, and repealing key mandates, among others. The point is though, that the bank bailout was unfortunately needed. Henry Paulson talked about 5.5 trillion dollars of wealth disappearing almost overnight and world economies collapsing. That may have been an exaggeration, but the situation was still nevertheless far more serious than you appeared to understand at the time, by your own words.

            Yes, I’m intimately familiar with the simple concept of an accounting identity, but I’m not sure you are. In 2011 you misread News Corporation financial statements and incorrectly reported News Corp as having made money on income taxes. That wasn’t just an embarrassing typo or a little bit off. It was totally, absolutely wrong. They didn’t get a 4.8 billion dollar tax refund. 4.8 billion was what they paid instead. How on earth do you make that mistake?

            I think you’re a fraud.

          • davidcayjohnston says:

            Opinions vary

    • Mr Corrections says:

      Sanders – or at least his wife – has been involved in some questionable accounting previously. That’s why it matters. The author also makes the excellent point that this is helping the GOP politicians who also choose not to submit their tax returns.

      • William West says:

        source?

        • Mr Corrections says:

          Maybe try googling? I mean I get that you are incapable of believing that Sanders – who has previously sold out to the NRA and Lockheed-Martin – could ever do anything wrong, while Clinton is obviously guilty of anything you make up.

          • William West says:

            I like the NRA, one of the areas I disagree with Sanders and Clinton on

          • Mr Corrections says:

            Ah OK, thanks for letting me know that you’re garbage, that was a real timesaver.

          • William West says:

            that’s real mature, you kind of sound like a Trump rip off to me. You should have said “Youre Fired”

          • Mr Corrections says:

            I don’t really care what you think; you’re garbage.

            I hope that helps!

    • Sam Brees says:

      for the record, Bernie hides most of his investments in his wife’s name. Bernie owns at least 3 homes. He recently bought 2 homes, one is in his wife’s name and the other in his daughter’s.

      The point is Hillary has released 23 years of her full tax returns and Bernie’s campaign has gone thru every page. Bernie has release nothing, but claims there is nothing to see. Well I would like to take a little look at those returns, if he doesn’t mind.

    • davidcayjohnston says:

      Mr. Kaufman,
      I have no idea who “they” are but my column is about important issues and I put them in historical context. The issue is not how much money, but how much candor.

      Please read my column, think about the issues in terms of our republic and if you then have useful insights please comment again.

      • dtgraham says:

        Your column is about a Bernie Sanders smear based on a very minor tax issue, you fraud.

        “Please read my column, think about the issues in terms of our republic.”

        Yes, please do that David.

      • William Kaufman says:

        Fine–now his tax return from last year is out. It shows that he made less in one year than Clinton made from one of her dozens of corporate speeches. I hope you will now be as persistent in demanding to see the transcripts of those speeches–which are no doubt very consequential–as you have been in demanding to see Bernie’s inconsequential tax treturns.

    • Paragryne says:

      200+ delegates and nearly 3 million more votes is not ‘sinking’. Statistics is a science and you are a denier. Unbelievable from someone who is supposedly an informed voter.

    • RetDem says:

      Read my post about what happened to Agnew above. That is why!!!! And, we have every right to know exactly what Bernie & wife’s income was and how they earn and spend money. Maybe then we can make the similar accusations the Hilary Haters are making about her.

    • ChrisTS says:

      He owns four houses.

  22. Jmz Nesky says:

    Why are we so preoccupied with tax returns and birth certificates? It’s the ability of the man/woman that counts.. Why aren’t we instead demanding they show us their political accomplishments and failures.. those are on record and those tell more about the
    candidate than their salary or investment habits. Certainly we can look at a politician’s finances but we can’t really look down on them because they acquired it from the Koch brothers or legitimate investments because if we were in their situation we would accept what was offered us as well. We can determine whether we want them as our leaders though and that’s the bottom line, not viewing them as scum.. We could also determine if they deserve our backing by reading their public record while in office which would be a better determination. It’s also kinda biased when we look at, say Bernie’s financial status and speculate whether he acquired what he has by the most underhanded means that we can conjure up yet overlook and even applaud how Trump acquired his wealth.

  23. Friedrich says:

    Yes, “props” to Hillary! And what did her tax returns show?

    Bill and Hillary got a collective $5.8 million for speeches to banks, investment firms, private equity funds, asset management companies, bank lobbies and the like. Bill Clinton brought in a total of $13.1 million in speech fees that year, while Hillary was paid about $9.7 million.

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/

    • Mr Corrections says:

      So what?

    • Sam Brees says:

      Yes and how would you know about Hillary’s income if she had not released her full returns. What is Bernie hiding and why is the “revolution” so mad that we are asking Bernie to be transparent.

      • Earlene Hammond says:

        Who says he is “hiding” them, and who is asking to see them? Maybe he has just been a little too busy to deal with it yet while going all over the country campaigning! Tax returns are private and confidential unless a government agency requests them, or they are used to establish payment ability to a lender. Who do you represent yourself as being someone with the right to see them? Is it a requirement that must be met as a candidate for federal office? If so, he will produce them. If you are just a nosy reporter hoping to dig up some kind of dirt, then what you are saying means absolutely nothing. He obviously is not wealthy, so what do you care? Why is it so important to you? It seems like you are trying to insinuate something to affect his likability, but all it does is make you look like a despicable, questionable jerk!

        The Clinton’s had to produce their’s so far back, because they were audited awhile ago due to questionable activity in their foundation, if I remember correctly.

        • Paragryne says:

          Nice spin.

        • davidcayjohnston says:

          Columnist here…

          Earline Hammond, your comment is rife with misinformation.

          The foundation audit has NOTHING to do with the release of the personal tax returns of the Clintons since 1992, which have been available for years at taxhistory.org and reported on by me and others.

          Sanders was asked for his tax returns repeatedly. The Washington Post asked for them last summer. I asked for them last week. Others have asked in between.

          Bernie was around when we had a vice president who admitted to being a tax criminal and a President who was an unindicted conspirator whose tax guy admitted to his crime.

          Bernie knows the drill. He knew before he started running this would come up and yet he has not disclosed.

          Have you thought bout how his game playing helps Trump, Cruz, Kasich, reinforces the hiding by Romney and (for some years) Cheney and will encourage more candidate sin the future to not be forthcoming?

          And had you read my column you would know the issue is not whether he has something to hide so much as why is he hiding his tax returns?

          And “nosy reporter” — yes that is so crucial to your liberty that we put journalists in the Bill of Rights, the very first amendment,to watchdog our government and its leaders.

        • RetDem says:

          On April 15, tell the IRS you have been too busy to file your tax return. See what that gets you beyond a penalty. Yes, you can take an extension, but you must pay an estimate of your taxes. When October 15 ends the extension, tell them again you’ve been to busy to file your taxes. Then you get the penalty…and might even be accused of tax evasion.

          We the people deserve to see the full tax disclosure of candidates for POTUS, not a Form 1040. If the candidate is “too busy” to be transparent with this information, that candidate receives the penalty of being denied the support and vote of any sensible member of the Electorate.

          Believe you me, the Republicans are making note of this conversation, and your candidate behaving like Kasich and Cruz with their tax returns. If your Bernie wins the nomination as the Democratic candidate for President, they will find a way to force him to release his tax returns. If there is something negative in them, they’ll use that information against him. You’ll “feel the Bern” then. Remember, Spiro Agnew???? If not google him to see what information in tax returns did to his Vice Presidency.

        • ChrisTS says:

          He’s in the top 3+%

        • A. D. Reed says:

          Earline:

          First, you do not remember correctly. The Clintons have been releasing their personal tax returns for decades, because it became a standard for all presidential candidate to do so long ago. Their personal returns for 23 years are on file for public view, and those returns have nothing to do with the returns or audit of the Clinton Foundation, which is a nonprofit charitable corporation that has an entirely different tax structure and tax history from the Clinton family. Just as Chelsea Clinton and her husband have separate taxes from her parents and his. Duh!

          Second, the author of this article is a journalist. He doesn’t “represent himself” as being someone with the right to see them. He points out, AS A JOURNALIST, that all serious candidates for the presidency have released their tax returns, and that the “right to view them” is not a constitutional or legal right but a standard of transparency that is expected of all those who hope to hold high office. He also points out WHY — that past elected officials have been indicted, pled nolo contendere, or been forced out of office because they were tax cheats. Therefore the public has the right and expectation to see what sort of financial history and habits the candidates have.

          So, given that, he points out that CLINTON has released all her personal tax returns from 23 years in public life — including when she was not an elected official but simply the wife of the president or a private citizen. And he points out that SANDERS has not released any of his tax returns, though he’s been in public life for 34 years and has been running for the presidency for nearly a year. How much time does it take to make his returns public?

          I really wonder if you took the same position when Mitt Romney refused to release his tax returns, then finally, grudgingly, did so for two years, and showed that he payed the tax rate of a part-time fast-food worker (13%) instead of a multimillionaire.

          If Bernie has nothing to hide, and he’s been planning to release his returns “as soon as possible,” and nine months have gone by and he hasn’t done so, the question is WHY NOT?

          You are the one acting like a jerk, frankly.

        • Sam Brees says:

          Hillary released her tax returns because she is running for president. Hillary released the FULL returns for 23 years. Bernie has done nothing but 2 pages of his 2014 return. Bernie’s excuse is that the tax returns are in his wife’s other purse.

    • Paragryne says:

      People are allowed to earn money. Even Bernie said so.

      • Friedrich says:

        By selling influence while you are Secretary of State, and asking foreign governments to contribute to the Clinton Foundation. Then bragging that you went from “broke to millionaires ($150 M) after leaving the White House? And you say people are allowed to earn money??????

        What would you say if the Bushes did that after they left office? How to be POTUS for fun and profit!

        • Paragryne says:

          I will say this again: When your argument begins with the assumption that your opponent is acting in bad faith, you lose the debate.

          • Friedrich says:

            That is exactly what people like you are inferring about Bernie. With no basis in fact. And when the amounts are what the Clinton’s raked in, it’s not hard to assume Hillary will be acting in her donors’ favor. There are facts documenting she did this in the State Department on behalf of Clinton Foundation foundation.

          • Paragryne says:

            I have inferred no such thing.

            You lose.

          • Friedrich says:

            You sound like Trump — a 5 year old!

          • Paragryne says:

            That’s exactly the response I would expect from someone who has no valid argument.

    • RetDem says:

      Read the discussion above–Splash79’s post. You are speaking from jealousy, not a factor that should interfere with her primary campaign against a candidate that will not even share the information about where he donated over $76,000.

      • Friedrich says:

        Oh, yeah! $76,000 is soooo problematic when you have the Clintons taking hundreds of millions from the banks and oil companies!

        • RetDem says:

          You sound soooooooo jealous that someone is famous enough to draw such large consultant fees for their philanthropic efforts and their campaign. I hear Bernet bragging all the time about the amount of money he collected in one day. What’s the difference, and don’t tell us that Hilary will owe the banks. Her record proves she is no friend of Wall Street or big oil.

          • Friedrich says:

            Philanthropy? The type that nets you $150+ million? Please, tell me once that Hillary voted against Wall Street or Big Oil.

          • Friedrich says:

            Hers went into her and Bill’s bank account.

  24. splashy79 says:

    Yes, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. No double standards, which is often done to women, holding them to a higher standard than the men.

  25. Paragryne says:

    I love the double standard being applied here. Bernie and company speculate for months what might be in Clinton’s Goldman Sachs speeches but are certain whatever it is must be nefarious. Bernie can’t release his tax returns because his wife does them but no speculation about what might be in there is allowed, because Bernie.

    I would just warn that if your argument is based the assumption that your opponent is acting in bad faith, you lose the debate. Bernie supporters are now learning the hard way how it feels to lose.

    Purity test failed.

    • dtgraham says:

      You think his income suddenly shot up by 1000% or something over past years and decades?

      • Paragryne says:

        I don’t believe anything of the sort. You clearly miss the point of my comment.

        • dtgraham says:

          She received $250,000 for a Wall Street speech. What they can expect to receive in exchange is kind of an obvious question.

          There is zero correlation between that and Bernie not yet releasing his full tax return at the beginning of April.

          • Paragryne says:

            You lose.

          • RetDem says:

            Really…you believe you won with that bogus accusation. Fill the Bern with more garbage. (And “Fill” was not a misspelled word “Fill” instead of Feel.)

          • Paragryne says:

            Remind me why I should care what you have to say.

          • RetDem says:

            Only if you remind me why your diatribe is important.

          • Paragryne says:

            Well, I guess if your wish is to continue to be a deluded jackass, it isn’t.

          • RetDem says:

            Remind me why I should care about the terms YOU use to describe ME. Your rantings and your comebacks communicate who the jackass really is. YOU!!!!!!! I will no longer respond. Good riddance.

          • Paragryne says:

            I wasn’t responding to you to begin with, was I? You’re the one who hijacked the conversation. Good riddance to you.

          • cleos_mom says:

            On the basis of persistent replies? Just a theory.

          • Paragryne says:

            Are you under the impression that I’m a Berniac? Wrong again.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            In exchange, they received a speech. How is that not obvious?

          • dtgraham says:

            $250,000 for a speech? What will they get later? Nobody pays $250,000 for just a speech.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            In fact, lots of people do. Lots of people pay even more. Sorry that your latest conspiracy theory, like all your others, relies entirely on insinuation rather than evidence, but that’s the problem with believing made-up stuff.

          • dtgraham says:

            It wasn’t one speech. She had a number of big pay days from them. They don’t pay that kind of money to hear how they should be broken up and regulated, and how a financial transaction tax would be appropriate.

            She’s quoted as saying how she’s tired of hearing how Wall St was to blame and how regulations are the answer. I’m sure I can find that again but so can you.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            OK sorry that your latest conspiracy theory, like all your others, relies entirely on
            insinuation rather than evidence, but that’s the problem with believing
            made-up stuff.

          • William West says:

            name some other people who get paid that for only a 20 minute speech. There is usually some kind of endorsement of their practices that goes along with it

          • Mr Corrections says:

            Um, that’s a pretty standard fee for someone very famous giving speeches. Bill, being the most popular living ex-President, gets up to three times as much. Dubya, who is obviously dumb as hell and has little to say, gets maybe two thirds. For a former Senator who fought her way up in a male-dominated institution and with an incredible track record in civil rights and feminism, that’s about right.

            You are relying entirely on insinuation and not at all on evidence.

          • William West says:

            well, maybe she should release the transcripts from those speeches so we wouldn’t have to speculate. otherwise it looks shady as hell

          • Mr Corrections says:

            What do you imagine you’re going to learn from these speeches, the topic of which was generally feminism?

          • William West says:

            you think the topic of her speech to Goldman Sachs was feminism?

          • Mr Corrections says:

            I know it was.

          • William West says:

            oh, were you there?

          • Mr Corrections says:

            Nah, unlike you I can simply read. Sorry, I got no more time to spend talking to a paranoid gun-humping conspiracy theorist today.

          • William West says:

            Scurry Along Then

          • Mr Corrections says:

            Sorry that you’re like this.

          • RetDem says:

            If he is the William West I know, there is no hope for him being anything else but what you got here.

          • ray jones says:

            People who there says it were about women breaking glass ceiling. Morning Joe crew claims to know people at that speech.

          • A_Real_Einstein says:

            So why not release the transcripts then?

          • RetDem says:

            Conspiracy, conspiracy, conspiracy. And, how do you know the speech was only 20 minutes long. Never heard of that? I won’t even give your theories the honor of listing names of people who get paid that much.

          • ray jones says:

            Colin Powell, every ex President, famous sports stars, Trump was getting over1 million a speech. Next?

          • Barbara Delaney says:

            Ronald Reagan, $1 million: Back in 1989, the Fujisankei Communications Group in Japan paid this former president a cool million per speech to come to the country and tour.

            Tony Blair, $616,000: On a lecture by lecture basis, Blair is likely the world’s best paid speaker. In 2009, he made almost $616,000 for two half-hour speeches given in the Philippines, raking in over $10,000 a minute.

            Donald Trump, $1-1.5 million: In 2006 and 2007, The Learning Annex shelled out a hefty fee to have Donald Trump at their Real Estate Wealth Expos, paying him a whopping $1.5 million per speech for a 17-seminar conference. Trump only had to speak for an hour at each one.

            Rudy Guilani, $270,000: While millions of New Yorkers got to hear Guiliani speak for free during his time as mayor, his speaking fees aren’t cheap now that he’s retired. Since his time in office, he’s earned nearly $10 million in speaking fees, with his most expensive gig netting him $217,000.
            ( figures courtesy of OnlineUniversities.com)

          • ray jones says:

            How funny he never responded to you giving him evidence from his own question!

          • ray jones says:

            There were many people named who get paid that kind of money for a speech. You want to see any of those people’s speeches. Do you want to see Ted Cruz’s loan papers from Goldman Sachs? How about Trump’s speeches? No? that makes no sense…

          • RetDem says:

            Oh how naive you are…

          • dtgraham says:

            See my response to dpaano. Who’s naive?

          • dpaano says:

            Sure they do and sometimes even MORE!!!

          • dtgraham says:

            Goldman Sachs will not pay anything to a speaker who tells them that the firewall between commercial and investment banking is coming back, and who also tells them that they need to be paying heavy risk fees and possibly even be downsized. They won’t pay to hear that no matter how much it’s needed.

            They will pay that kind of money, as an insurance policy, to someone that they “trust”, and whom they know will be running for President and may easily win.

          • cleos_mom says:

            Not on your home planet, apparently.

          • RetDem says:

            People do get large consulting fees when they have received recognition and are in demand. Don’t you get a pay check for the work you do–maybe not as much, but you do. Get over it…she’s famous and earned the right to make the money.

    • RetDem says:

      Maybe the Bernites will finally realize you can’t become POTUS by whining and complaining about the way things are. I am a long time academic (retired), and his promise for free tuition is ridiculous. Higher education is so poorly funded now that it would be cut even worse when the Congress of our Federal Government was required approve funding. His policies would destroy higher education in this country. But those tens of thousands (many students or parents paying tuition for their children) at his rallies can’t see the reality of his idle promises for this, healthcare, and even “getting large numbers out to vote so he can win.” Large numbers do come out Bernie, and you are still wagging your tail behind you.

  26. Linda West says:

    Maybe because he and his wife are on the road and the taxes are at home in a filing cabinet or box like mine are.

  27. Richard Flynn says:

    Maybe we should be more concerned about their psychological profiles than their tax returns. WTF media!

  28. Fid says:

    . RELEASE YOUR TAX RETURNS SANDERS. WHAT ARE YOU HIDING?

  29. RetDem says:

    Just shows you Bernites, that Bernie, too, is nothing more than a un-transparent Politician. He can talk the talk about others, but won’t walk the walk when it come to himself. Remember how Mittens dragged his feet on releasing tax returns. Currently, Cruz and Kasich are doing the same thing. This makes me “feel the Bern” is in bad company, not worthy of my vote.

    • A_Real_Einstein says:

      You do understand that a IRS 1040 is a tax return? The same one we all fill out. My guess is you have other issues with Bernie. That is fine but this is BS. This hack (author has spent a lot of time defending this false attack).

      • davidcayjohnston says:

        Again a Form 1040 is a form it is not a complete tax return, but I’ve already explained that to you so your comment above is dishonest.

        • A_Real_Einstein says:

          So you finally admit that an IRS Form 1040 is a tax return. Thank you. I get it, Bernie did not submit all of his schedules to see how he itemized his deductions from his 200k salary from being Senator. However we do know what is total income was, his taxable income, his effective tax rate and the total amount of his deductions which all appears to be very normal. So what was the purpose of the story? What insight have you provided.? Is it honest to say that Bernie is less forthcoming about his taxes than Trump? This is disengenuous at best.

          • davidcayjohnston says:

            No it is not, You suffer from willful blindness. No competent tax authority — tax law professor, tax accountant, Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation staffer — will say that a 1040 is a tax return. It is PART of a tax return, a summary, as I have explained to you.

            Willful blindness is a curable disease. Work on curing yourself.

          • A_Real_Einstein says:

            I have already provided you with the definition of what the IRS Form 1040 is. Fine let’s move on. What was the purpose of your story and what benefit did the reader get as a result? Cat got your toungue?

          • davidcayjohnston says:

            And I’ve shown that your definition is wrong and I have explained the reasons why, but you ignore anything that does not fit your prejudices.

          • A_Real_Einstein says:

            So what was your motivation for the story? How did the reader benefit? What did we learn?

          • davidcayjohnston says:

            Your willful blindness keeps you from saying the obvious right in front of you about why this is important on many levels, which I have articulated for you (and the few others) repeatedly.

          • A_Real_Einstein says:

            Your refusal to answer the question of what your purpose of the story is is very telling. You have no answer. You purposely misinform your readers and them claim it to be factual and then try to divert our attention to your past work. You cannot answer my simple question because you simply cannot answer for the journalistic garbage that Mr Conason asked you to write. You are a hack.

          • davidcayjohnston says:

            As I have written before, I have shown you and others that, but there is also no reason for me to respond because it is self-evident to anyone not inflicting themselves with willful blindness, as you are.

            And you further display your disregard because Conason never asks me to write anything. I tell him. I self-direct and always have. Indeed, since I was 18 I have only once in my life (when I was 39) even applied for a job. So, again your words show that you know nothing but your own prejudices and have no interest in letting into your mind any facts that do not fit your preconceived notions.

          • A_Real_Einstein says:

            So,we all must assume then that as a result of your own bias that you will go to extreme lengths to make sure people think that Bernie is purposely hiding something and refuses to be honest about how he arrived at his itemized deductions. You state that Bernie is less forthright than Trump is about his taxes even though Bernie has released IRS Form 1040 without the accompany schedules. What has Trump released? Do you still stand by that?

          • davidcayjohnston says:

            I stand by what I wrote as I wrote it, not by your twisted mischaracterization. Your willful blindness is worsening by the minute.

          • A_Real_Einstein says:

            What mischarecterization? Has Trump released his IRS Form 1040?

          • RetDem says:

            The debate was won by davidcayjohnson with that response from our pseudo-Einstein.

          • JNagarya says:

            When is Sanders going to release his tax returns?

          • A_Real_Einstein says:

            Do you know what a 2015 IRS Form 1040 is? Did not think so.

          • JNagarya says:

            When is Sanders going to release his tax returns?

          • dpaano says:

            I don’t believe the article was about Trump……

          • RetDem says:

            As do you with your rants about Hilary. You’re right davidcayjohnson…his willful blindness blinds him to his own hypocrisy.

          • A_Real_Einstein says:

            What rants?

          • JNagarya says:

            When will Sanders be releasing his tax returns, instead of lying about the issue?
            What is he hiding — a yacht or two?

          • JNagarya says:

            “Einstein” is fully aware of his dishonesty.

          • JNagarya says:

            That’s the objective reality:
            He refuses to simply release his tax returns by making transparently baldfaced dishonest excuses.
            When will Sanders be releasing his tax returns?

          • dpaano says:

            No one is saying that he’s not being honest…..we’re only asking for him to provide the same information that Hillary has provided….what does that have to do with “bias?” Seriously?

          • A_Real_Einstein says:

            Since you do not want to come clean on what motivated you to write that Bernie did not submit his supporting data regarding the details of his official IRS 1040 form perhaps you can redeem yourself by weighing in on a couple questions.

            1. In a campaign of full transperency, Should Hillary release at least some of the transcripts of the speeches to the Wall Street banks?

            2. Are you comfortable with the fact that Hillary has received over 4,000,000 in campaign and Superpac contributions from the Fossil Fuel Industries. Are you comfortable that she explains that contributions from lobbyists are equivalent to just getting small contributions from folks that just happen to work for the industry?

          • RetDem says:

            What is your purpose for releasing the speeches? Look “who’s calling the pot black.”

          • RetDem says:

            An the Fossil fuel contributions were cleared up last week. Your numbers are off.

          • JNagarya says:

            It also turns out that Sanders receives contributions from that he calls “the oil industry”.
            Hypocrisy is not spelled “S-o-c-i-a-l-is-m”.
            Back the question asked by the article:
            When will Sanders stop the dishonest excuses and simply release his tax returns?

          • A_Real_Einstein says:

            Before expecting her to fix the issues that caused the greatest financial collapse in history, I would like to know what she says to them after they have paid her millions of dollars for personal income. Silly me. I want to know if what she says in public is the same as what she says publicly. Based on her refusal to release these secret speeches it is safe to assume she does not want to release these which would end her candidacy.

          • JNagarya says:

            It was Congress that deregulated, not Hillary Clinton.
            When is Sanders going to release his tax returns?

          • dpaano says:

            The so-called “greatest financial collapse in history” is on GWB’s plate and NOT on Hillary’s. It’s just another “blame game” by the GOP to try to bring her down…..ain’t going to work!

          • cleos_mom says:

            Maybe she could just release summaries, like the first 30 seconds or so.

          • JNagarya says:

            The article is about Sanders, and his refusal to release his tax returns.
            Your effort to shift the focus to Clinton is transparent intellectual dishonesty, which is no accident.

          • dpaano says:

            Transcripts of Hillary’s speeches are a far cry from Sander’s COMPLETE tax returns, and as I said above, what is so interesting about her speeches? What in hell do they have to do with anything!!!??? You’re talking apples and oranges!

          • dpaano says:

            These individuals are brainwashed by their GOP leaders….much like Stockholm Syndrome!!!

          • JNagarya says:

            When will Sanders be releasing his tax returns?

          • dpaano says:

            David: Unfortunately, it’s like talking to a wall and the more you try to explain to them, the less they understand. Hang in there!!! We intelligent people totally understand where you’re coming from and agree wholeheartedly. If Hillary can provide ALL of her tax returns (with the schedules, etc.), then there’s NO reason why Bernie shouldn’t have to do the same. If he wants to be as transparent as he says he is…..he would do what is asked.

          • JNagarya says:

            We learned that Sanders continues to lie about releasing his tax returns.
            Perhaps it’s because the returns would reveal that he can afford much better than the “rumpled suit” act.

          • JNagarya says:

            Simple question:

            Why is Sanders refusing to release his tax returns?

          • cleos_mom says:

            Because he’s going to address the Vatican?

          • JNagarya says:

            “Willful blindness” = deliberate lying.

          • cleos_mom says:

            More like the inner structure of a house. When you do a US tax return (not of the 1040-EZ variety), you go line by line and fill out each schedule as you come to the line that references it. If there are no schedules, one of the shorter 1040 forms will suffice. If you filled out a straight 1040 form and only provide that, it’s not what the IRS saw. And they don’t require schedules on the basis of job security.

          • davidcayjohnston says:

            Bernie and Jane not eligible for the 1040A or EZ. They itemized. Their full return includes Scheduled A,C and E and perhaps others.

            And one year is not enough. If you are planning to run for President you can arrange your affairs fir one or two years, as I showed that Romney did four years ago, to create misleading impressions.

          • cleos_mom says:

            LOL, yes that was what I was saying. If you’re filing a 1040 long form, it’s not the complete return.

          • RetDem says:

            You need to change your handle. An Einstein you aren’t. Maybe A_Real_Bernite would better describe you.

          • JNagarya says:

            You are lying in the face of the uncomplicated facts:

            Clinton tax returns release: 23 years.

            Sanders tax returns release: 0.

            And lying when asserting that the uncomplicated statement of those objective facts is “disingenuous at best”.

      • RetDem says:

        I’m going to my accountant to file my taxes next week. She will not let me give her a list of numbers to put on Form 1040…I must document all things that went into that number with other forms. We have a right to know where and how the $76,000+ in contributions were allocated. This is 27% of their income. (You do realize he files a joint return with his wife–thus “their.” And I have long been a Bernie supporter. I just don’t want him to end up like Spiro Agnew giving the government to the GOPeers.

      • JNagarya says:

        Clinton tax return release: 23 years.

        Sander tax return release: 0.

        Those are facts. Full stop.

        It is he, Sanders, who responded to the question about his not releasing his returns with the avoidant irrelevancy that his wife does the taxes. Which, even if true, is not a barrier to releasing the returns.

        Why is Bernie lying in order to NOT release his returns?

        • A_Real_Einstein says:

          Clinton paid private speeches to special interest groups that destroyed our economy = $153,000,000.
          Bernie = 0

          Full stop

          What is stopping her from releasing her speech transcripts other than it will end her candidacy?

          Do you really want to go there?

          By the way do you what an IRS Form 1040 is?

          • JNagarya says:

            Note the word “private”.
            She needn’t release the work-product resulting from a private contract.
            When is Sanders going to release his PUBLIC-document tax returns?
            But tell us: have you any EVIDENCE for the innuendo you are slinging at Clinton?
            And, as the article is about SANDERS and his REFUSAL to release his tax returns, it is DISHONEST to avoid that issue altogether by smearing the candidate who released TWENTY-THREE YEARS of tax returns.
            So answer the question:
            When will Sanders going to release his tax returns.
            And if you want to throw it in:
            When will Sanders be releasing the transcripts of his bought-and-paid-for speeches to private special interests?

          • A_Real_Einstein says:

            Sanders has already released all of his speeches to special interest groups. There none. That is the point.

            Can you tell me what an IRS Form 1040 is? It is easy to google.

          • A_Real_Einstein says:

            We know that the IRS requires a a Form 1040 to be filed by taxpayers who may have tax liability every year. Other than the author who appears to have absolutely no ability to defend this garbage article will tell you that a Form 1040 is a TAX RETURN! We know what Bernie’s total income was. We know how much he claimed in exemptions and expenses. We know what his taxable income was and what his effective tax rate was. What else do you need to know?

            It looks like your gal is going to lose in WI and NY and CA are now in play. The Clintons are melting down. I can smell desperation when they have to hire hacks like this to do her bidding. Why is she afraid to debate Bernie in NY?

          • dpaano says:

            You need to get your nose checked because Hillary is doing just fine…..and as far as California goes….she’s got this state in the bag!!

          • Mr Corrections says:

            What do you imagine you are accomplishing by attempting to move the goalposts to something utterly unrelated?

          • A_Real_Einstein says:

            According to everyone I spoke to at the IRS today, a Form 1040 is a tax return. Everyone I have spoken to that is not a Hillary supporter agrees that she should turn over the transcripts. Let’s make a deal. Bernie will turn over his schedule Cs and any tax returns and supporting schedules that you want. Hillary then should turn over all the speeches she made to Goldman Sachs. Deal? What makes me think that Hillary would never do that. Hmmmm. Why is Hillary to chicken to debate Bernie in NY. Hmmm I wonder….,

          • Mr Corrections says:

            OK I’m sorry that everyone you spoke to at the IRS today was an idiot. The form itself is – once again – only PART of a tax return. This really isn’t hard, unless you’re a zealot with double standards.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            Also, since Sanders has apparently only published the first few pages of his 1040, he hasn’t even released that solitary tax return by YOUR standards, let alone accurate ones.

          • dpaano says:

            I have NO idea why people are so interested in getting copies of Hillary’s speeches…..what does that have to do with anything? She gave speeches to MANY groups….do you want ALL of these too? Many of our senators, governors, past presidents, etc., have given speeches to groups…..even Wall Street groups….and no one has ever had a problem. I just don’t understand what transcripts of these speeches would accomplish. It’s just being pretty petty! Let’s get transcripts of speeches that Trump or Cruz have made to various groups…..I bet you’ll find a couple of Wall Street groups that they dealt with also.

          • cleos_mom says:

            My impression is that some political enthusiasts have not attended many events that feature paid speeches. Maybe they think it’s like a bar or coffee shop with business suits.

          • JPHALL says:

            If you really want an idea of her speeches, go to: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/clinton-speeches-218969

          • A_Real_Einstein says:

            Utter nonsense. It is obvious that whatever is in those speeches would end her campaign within 30 seconds. She is not who you think she is and is being completely rejected by state after state.

          • JPHALL says:

            Wow! So much right wing BS! You wont even believe people who were at the meetings? Such fanaticism on your part!
            Subject: Re: Comment on Why Hasn’ t Bernie Sanders Released His Tax Returns? (Or Cruz Or Kasich, Either… )

          • A_Real_Einstein says:

            I believe what I see. Not what people who I do not know with a hidden political agenda want to me think. I am not sure what that has to do with being right wing. If there is nothing damaging in those speeches than there absolutely no reason not to release them to silence critics like myself. Otherwise we will continue to believe that she is entirely FOS. An overwhelming majority of people in VT, NH, KS , MI, WI, UT, WS etc. also believe she is completely full of baloney. Running from only further proves our case. Release the transcripts or Feel the Bern.

          • JPHALL says:

            Wow. So much self importance! Only you and few other Berniebots care about those speeches. Most people have experience these corporate talks. And they are mostly morale boosters, like the people who were at the speeches have reported. What I and the majority of Democrats want to hear is how are you going to change things. It is time for specific policies and not “pie in the sky” dreams.
            Subject: Re: Comment on Why Hasn’ t Bernie Sanders Released His Tax Returns? (Or Cruz Or Kasich, Either… )

          • A_Real_Einstein says:

            Based on the results of the last 7 primaries Where Hillary got her teeth kicked in I would say millions of us are upset about those speeches and how she refuses to demonstrate that what she says in public is the same as what she says in private. Her 47% moment. She is in a tough spot. If she releases the transcripts and proves what we already know (liar) she loses. If she does not release she demonstrates even more dishonesty and she loses. Big problem for Shillary.

          • JPHALL says:

            Typical Berniebot drivel. Bernie, despite the wins, is still nearly 300 delegates and 430 Super delegates behind Clinton. He needs almost 73% of the remaining delegates. All Clinton needs is less than 30%. I think that she can hang on for the next few weeks since she keeps getting at least 40%. Subject: Re: Comment on Why Hasn’ t Bernie Sanders Released His Tax Returns? (Or Cruz Or Kasich, Either… )

          • A_Real_Einstein says:

            Actually most of the delegates in WA have not been officially tallied so the real number is less than 200. Bernie who is now poised to win both NY and CA which by themselves could make up the difference will continue to win states and rack up delegates. At that point where Bernie has a lead in voting delegates the Superdelegates will have to decide to go with the will of the people and nominate Bernie or stay with Hillary and disenfranchise millions of Bernie supporters who will not be going to the polls in November.

          • JPHALL says:

            What you Bots forget is that none of these primaries are winner take all. Clinton keeps adding delegates after each one. Also any of the upcoming primaries are closed to Independents who make up much of his support.
            Subject: Re: Comment on Why Hasn’ t Bernie Sanders Released His Tax Returns? (Or Cruz Or Kasich, Either… )

          • A_Real_Einstein says:

            She leads by roughly 200 pledged delegates. There are roughly 1500 outstanding pledged delegates remaining. Bernie can easily make up those 200 delegates and when he does the Superdelagates will switch to the candidate that has the most voted delegates like they always do. That is why the Clintons are freaking out and have said that NY is a must win for Hillary. I agree.

          • A_Real_Einstein says:

            Wow

            Did you hear that the Pope invited Bernie to speak at the Vatican next week to talk about economic morality. That is big and like getting an endorsement from Jesus the last true Jewish socialist. I am telling you Hillary is not going to be the nominee. The next President of the US is Bernie Sanders.

          • A_Real_Einstein says:

            Wasserman Shulltz says nominee to be determined by voted delegates not Superdelegates. Bernie gaining fast in the polls in NY, CA and PA. This , the pope and Bill losing his composure with Black Lives Matter is a great day for feeling the Bern.

          • JPHALL says:

            More wishful thinking about Clinton. Most people cheered Clinton and only a minute few have jeered. So get over it! Subject: Re: Comment on Why Hasn’ t Bernie Sanders Released His Tax Returns? (Or Cruz Or Kasich, Either… )

          • A_Real_Einstein says:

            I do not think the African Americans who have watched this go viral are cheering. They are super pissed. When does Hillary give her speech to the Vatican on economic morality? How does Hillary win without the superdelegates? And just think tomorrow she loses another state by 50+ points. This is fun.

          • JPHALL says:

            You still do not get it. More fantasies. The Vatican? Who cares. The Clinton’s have given economic speeches to groups worldwide for decades. In fact, you have been vocally complaining about their speeches for and about money. BLM? They keep giving themselves a black eye by their antics. As to votes, Bernie could not win Wyoming yesterday by 50% in a caucus. He will definitely not win elections with large numbers of actual voters by 50%.
            Subject: Re: Comment on Why Hasn’ t Bernie Sanders Released His Tax Returns? (Or Cruz Or Kasich, Either… )

          • dtgraham says:

            Hey JP, I really wanted to get your opinion on something. The National Memo is sure as hell not going to release a story on this, so I’ve chosen this one.

            Hillary has wanted to steer her campaign in the direction of reversing the 90’s tough on crime mass incarceration era. Bill Clinton strongly defended his 90’s tough on crime mass incarceration legislation the other day to Black lives matter protesters. He actually said that he “almost felt like apologizing” to them later. He just didn’t.

            How do you think this is going to play out with Black voters, and how do you personally feel about this? Bernie is very opposed to that 90’s legislation.

          • JPHALL says:

            The same way it always plays out. I know people like you feel everyone should react the way you want them too. But let’s get real. The Clinton’s have always stood with Black Americans not just when they needed the votes. Most Blacks back then supported the bill. We were tired of the courts letting Black on Black and White on Black criminals off easy while others got near life terms. Like most things in life, things did not work out as planned. So no major backlash against the Clinton’s. At least they tried and now are trying to fix the problem.
            Subject: Re: Comment on Why Hasn’ t Bernie Sanders Released His Tax Returns? (Or Cruz Or Kasich, Either… )

          • dtgraham says:

            Thanks for the response. Those BLM protesters didn’t appreciate what Bill did in the 90’s on that score, but I’ll have to take your word on it for now. If most Blacks supported the bill in your opinion, then there should be no repercussions for Bill’s little lecture to the BLM people at that event. We shall see, as the primaries play out.

          • JPHALL says:

            What seems to have been forgotten is that this was not an act by a single person. The Republican congress had a hand in this also. Like now they added conditions that made things worse. Look it up. “The contract with America”
            Subject: Re: Comment on Why Hasn’ t Bernie Sanders Released His Tax Returns? (Or Cruz Or Kasich, Either… )

          • dtgraham says:

            It was a Republican inspired idea for sure but Bill should have vetoed it. The Clintons have to own it. He had learned from the 1994 debacle and was trying to look as conservative as possible at the time. That’s what bothers me about the Clinton malleability. It also extended to ending Glass-Steagall.

            Bill Clinton played an instrumental role in creating the world’s largest prison system — one that devastated inner cities, made a mockery of American idealism abroad, and continues to inflict needless suffering on millions of people…and he did it with his wife’s support.

            To hear him now lecture BLM people on this is amazing to hear. As I said to you on another thread, upper-middle income and wealthier Blacks may not care that much about this video on Bill, but I wonder about the others. I’ll take your word on this for now JP.

          • JPHALL says:

            Again you missed the point. Nothing exists in a vacuum. Deals were made the most people now regret. Move on.
            Subject: Re: Comment on Why Hasn’ t Bernie Sanders Released His Tax Returns? (Or Cruz Or Kasich, Either… )

          • cleos_mom says:

            I’ve heard a few corporate talks over the years. The expression “rubber chicken circuit” comes to mind.

          • JPHALL says:

            Yes, I agree. Most of these yahoos complaining think these were private meetings with executives. Even when people who were at the meetings talk, they are ignored because their narratives do not match expectations of wrong doing. Subject: Re: Comment on Why Hasn’ t Bernie Sanders Released His Tax Returns? (Or Cruz Or Kasich, Either… )

          • cleos_mom says:

            A week has passed now and you haven’t explained exactly how it’s “obvious”.

          • A_Real_Einstein says:

            Not releasing transcripts which is causing her to lose support daily would make it obvious she would never want us to see what she says to the banksters in private. Her 47% moment. She is a centrist plutocrat or she would have released those transcripts within 24 hours of when Chuck Todd asked for them and put an end to this controversy which has costed her millions of votes. We will never see those.

          • splashy79 says:

            So, Einstein, you want a double standard where Clinton has to give up MORE privacy than anyone else in order to satisfy you, while giving everyone else a pass.

      • Mr Corrections says:

        The author has spend a lot of time explaining to you that a 1040 – of which Bernie has released the first section of one for one year – is only a portion of the tax return, and that therefore Sanders hasn’t even released the one year he’s claiming to have released. The fact that you won’t accept that is diagnostic of your issues, but otherwise unimportant.

        • A_Real_Einstein says:

          The 1040 is the required form that you must submit when filing your return. It contains 79 lines and determines whether or not you owe or get refund. It includes his total income, taxable income, amount of expenses and deductions and the exact amount of of the tax he paid. What exactly would you need to know about Bernie’s return that was not already public knowledge.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            See previous post. I get that you have a double standard, but this isn’t hard.

          • A_Real_Einstein says:

            What information from Bernie’s tax return would you like to know about? When you filled out your tax return this year , what form did you submit?

          • Mr Corrections says:

            You seem to think that personal attacks on the person telling you a simple fact – that despite his claims Sanders has not revealed his tax returns – are in any way relevant or appropriate. Weird!

          • A_Real_Einstein says:

            If have no problem with criticism as long as it is true. What 2 page form did you submit when you submitted your tax return this year?!

          • Mr Corrections says:

            I’m sorry, you seem to be having difficulty reading. I’m not jumping through ridiculous invented hoops for you, I’m trying to explain to you that Sanders – the “transparency” candidate – has not released any tax returns for any years. I get that, as a partisan fanatic, you are a mass of idiotic contradictions and are simply attempting to hand-wave away the truth; I just don’t care. The only transparent candidate on either side remains Hillary Clinton.

          • He hasn’t released his schedules but he has provided his tax return for 2014.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            He’s released the first few pages of part of one year. In other words, he hasn’t released his tax returns, for any year.

          • I’m a tax accountant. That’s not how it works. The 1040 is the tax return. He hasn’t released his schedules, but he has released his tax return.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            No he hasn’t, at least not in the sense that the term is used when politicians are doing this (and, again, he hasn’t even released the whole 1040 for the solitary year he’s done this). The form is called a tax return, but does not constitute the entirety of a tax return, and hence he has released only part of the information required.

            For a guy who’s both been involved in some questionable accounting in the past and claims he is running on a platform of greater transparency, this does not inspire confidence.

          • Actually, it does constitute the entirety of the tax return. Suppose this was filed with the IRS without accompanying schedules, the IRS would first request the missing schedules, then after a period of time, would accept the return without the schedules and disallow any allowances or deductions from the schedules. The whole 1040 consists of 2 pages. He has not disclosed his tax return with accompanying schedules, but he has disclosed his tax return for 2014.

          • dtgraham says:

            Thanks for that.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            You are, of course, utterly wrong. It might be ACCEPTED as a complete tax return if you submit nothing else, but as that did not happen in this case the 1040 is not the entirety of his 2014 tax return. Hence, he has not released his complete 2014 tax return.

            How is this difficult?