Select Page

Democrats Weaponize Tax Returns … a Dangerous Precedent

Democrats Weaponize Tax Returns … a Dangerous Precedent

For most of American history, a person’s tax returns have been considered sacrosanct and private. 

In fact, the law makes it a crime to reveal another person’s tax information.  Internal Revenue Service personnel are not allowed to disclose any portion of a tax return, any information about an audit, or even any information about fines and penalties imposed – unless and until criminal activity was discovered and the case was referred to the Department of Justice for prosecution.

In the mid-Twentieth Century, candidates for office began to publish their tax returns – at least the cover documents, if not all the backup information.  That was a slippery slope that led to a “tradition” of candidates revealing their own tax information.  That they can legally do.  I never thought it was a good idea, but it became the thing to do.

While most attention was paid to the returns of presidential candidates, the practice spread to candidates for other offices – senators, congressmen, governors, mayors, etc.  Although not legally required, public expectation and media pressure tended to solidify the practice.

I have never liked browbeating candidates into revealing tax returns.  If they wish to reveal the returns, okay.  But if they choose not to do so, that should be the end of the topic – and let the voters decide if that is important to them.  For me, the privacy of tax returns should not be abridged – and I am very opposed to any law that would circumvent that right of privacy.

Tax returns have been a peculiar issue. 

If a candidate decided not to reveal the returns, there would be a loud clamor from the public – promoted by opposing candidates, and negative stories in the press.  But when measured as an issue affecting a person’s vote, it was virtually a non-factor.  Refusing to reveal his returns had no impact on President Trump’s surprising election in 2016 – no matter how much Democrats and the media beat that drum.

I have expressed my opinion in writing over many years – and I have advised candidates not to reveal tax returns as part of their basic right of privacy.  My campaign advice was to issue a statement that the returns would not be revealed – and why – and then never mention the subject again – and not to respond to badgering questions.  The badgering question would subside, and the issue would disappear from the political debate.

My advice was to not equivocate or soften that position by suggesting that the candidate “may” think about it – or handle it later.  That only keeps the issue alive.  

I had some practical experience with the issue when I was the campaign press spokesperson for Chicago Democrat Mayor Eugene Sawyer.  He did not wish to reveal his tax returns.  Based on my advice, he issued a definitive statement.  End of subject.  Au Contraire.  Shortly afterward, Sawyer responded to a question from a television reporter that he would “consider” revealing them – and the issue dogged his campaign.

Trump’s tax returns

Obviously, Trump was not privy to my advice.  He did the worst possible thing by saying he would release his returns as soon as he was not under audit.  That was transparent bullcrap from the start – and everyone knew it.  Consequently, there were ever-present requests to know when he would release them.  The issue dragged on … and on … and on.

Other means to financial information

It is important to understand that there are many other means to learning about a candidate’s financial dealings.  Federal candidates – President, Vice President, and members of Congress – are required to file detailed financial statements.  Candidates’ contributions to charity – and even other campaigns – are a matter of record.  Candidates with extensive business activities or investments are often required to file documents as a matter of public record.  If candidates are involved in questionable or illegal activities, the details of those activities become a matter of public record.

To understand the extent to which such financial information is available, there is no better example than Trump, himself.  Even prior to the release of his returns, most of the information revealed was already a matter of public knowledge.

Creating false issues

Tax returns tend to elevate petty and gossip-level issues to pseudo-importance.  These include how much tax a person pays … what deductions they declare … how much they donate to charity (and what charities) …  unique deductions available to businesses and investors.  The IRS, itself, declares that a person of business has The Right to Pay No More Than the Correct Amount of Tax,” – which can be (legally) zero in many cases.  In other words, many folks pay no taxes because the law allows for all sorts of legitimate deductions.  The public may wish to complain about the tax laws, but most folks would do the same.  You do not find too many people trying to pay more taxes than they are legally required.  Even if all the income and deductions are all be perfectly legal, revealing the tax filings can – and often do — hold the person up to unfair public ridicule based petty jealousy, class warfare, and partisan political abuse.   

The danger of weaponizing tax returns

According to the law, Congress has a right to review any person’s tax returns – but only when the purpose is to frame legislation.  In Trump’s case, it was alleged to examine the Presidential Tax Audit act.  Presidents are supposed to have their taxes privately audited by the IRS to see if they are getting income from questionable sources or filing false information.

This process got weaponized by Congressional Democrats.  Their alleged legislative purpose is a thinly veiled effort to further attack and demonize Trump.  Regardless of Trump’s culpabilities – yet to be determined — the so-called review of his tax returns for legislative purposes was simply a ruse.

That is further proven by the fact that they have now released Trump’s returns as fodder for the left-wing media mill.  The public release serves no legislative purpose – even if they find the need to amend the Presidential Audit Act.  That could have been done without releasing the actual taxes.  The release was purely political.

There is clearly a right for Congress to see a President’s tax returns – or any other American citizen’s.  Now that the tradition of privacy has been broken, will Republicans be acquiring and exposing President Biden’s tax information?  Oh, I know he revealed his – but only a very small portion of the all-important details.  And what about Hunter Biden’s tax returns?  He is already under investigation by the IRS.  Maybe all that should be made public.  If it is in the public interest to take a deep dive into one political figure’s tax returns, then why not every candidate?

Lack of enforcement

One of the problems has been the lack of enforcement when tax returns have been illegally revealed.  You may recall that a portion of Trump’s tax returns were leaked to the media. That was illegal.  But there was no protest – or hearings – in Congress.  There was no effort to find out – and punish – those who did it.  Where is that rule-of-law theory in that case?

Presidential Tax Audit Act

According to a law passed in the mid-1970s, a President’s tax filing is supposed to be audited by the IRS every year.  This was not done with Trump in his first two years in office – even though that for the first year, the IRS was still run by President Obama’s appointees.  The second year was the responsibility of a Trump appointee.  According to some reports, there were lapses in the case of previous Presidents.  Why it was not done has never been fully explained by the IRS.

Summary

There are many good reasons why folks – including candidates and officeholders – prefer to keep their tax information private.  If they are to be stripped of their right of privacy, maybe it would be in the public interest to see the tax returns of government bureaucrats – and even members of the Fourth Estate.  The same public interest arguments could be made in those cases, too.

Exposing a person’s tax return without probable cause is bad enough.  The IRS has more than enough power to deal with folks who cheat on their taxes.  But to weaponize them for partisan political purposes further undermines an individual’s constitutional rights – even if that person is the President of the United States.  It shifts more grains of sand away from personal rights to government power.  At least, that is how this conservative sees it.

So, there ‘tis.

About The Author

Larry Horist

So,there‘tis… The opinions, perspectives and analyses of Larry Horist Larry Horist is a businessman, conservative writer and political strategist with an extensive background in economics and public policy. Clients of his consulting firm have included such conservative icons as Steve Forbes and Milton Friedman. He has served as a consultant to the Nixon White House and travelled the country as a spokesman for President Reagan’s economic reforms. He has testified as an expert witness before numerous legislative bodies, including the U. S. Congress. Horist has lectured and taught courses at numerous colleges and universities, including Harvard, Northwestern, DePaul universities, Hope College and his alma mater, Knox College. He has been a guest on hundreds of public affairs talk shows, and hosted his own program, “Chicago In Sight,” on WIND radio. Horist was a one-time candidate for mayor of Chicago and served as Executive Director of the City Club of Chicago, where he led a successful two-year campaign to save the historic Chicago Theatre from the wrecking ball. An award-winning debater, his insightful and sometimes controversial commentaries appear frequently on the editorial pages of newspapers across the nation. He is praised by readers for his style, substance and sense of humor. According to one reader, Horist is the “new Charles Krauthammer.” He is actively semi-retired in Boca Raton, Florida where he devotes his time to writing. So, there ‘tis is Horist’s signature sign off.

25 Comments

  1. Big D

    Let’s put the Tax returns of all the Senators and Congress people out for the Public to view before they expect all the Men and women running for office to display theirs. The incumbents are mostly crooks any way!

  2. Mike F

    Larry, Not surprisingly, I disagree with virtually everything you say in this tome. Presidents are public figures and the public has a right to know all about their financial condition. You state that you feel that some candidates have a need to keep their returns private-exactly why do you believe that? What has been shown by releasing trumps returns is more lying regarding his financial condition (of course the thinking public already knew that). You also state in your conclusion that the IRS has enough power to deal with people who cheat on their taxes. That is demonstrably false, which is why Biden has provided them more funding. Of course the R’s want to take that away-they don’t care about tax cheats (likely because most of them are cheating just like their dear leader…). The IRS passed on their required audit of trump, likely due to funding issues (no, I don’t think there was some nefarious reason for this inaction, simply lack of funding caused this to pass through the cracks). I know your base thinks they don’t like the IRS and that’s why you wrote about them, however it’s because they don’t understand that they are forced to pay more for government operations because the rich guys can cheat with impunity and not be caught…

    • Bill L

      You must be watching too much Communist Propaganda to spew false facts like you just did, but then of course that’s why we refer to your types as anti-American Communist SCUM.

    • larry Horist

      Mike F. I am not surprised that you disagree with me on this … and most everything else…lol. First … what the public needs to know (although it is not a right) can be found in many other places, were there is public disclosure. Second… why the IRS did not fulfill its obligation to PRIVATELY audit presidential tax returns is unknown — but it is definitely not a lack of funds. That is a specific responsibility. Third … we pay more taxes NOT because businesses and rich folks are necessarily cheating but because they have legal deductions. If you are pointing at anyone for the problem — look at their friends in Congress who provide the so-called loopholes. Fourth … I do not have a “base”. I have readers on all sides. I wrote because I think the IRS is an abusive government agency — and because I do believe that tax returns should remain private unless a prosecutorial agency is pursing tax evasion with probable cause. It is different when a law enforcement agency release private information as part of an indictment and release is made by a political entity. My personal preference it to abolish the IRS … end the income tax and replace it with a national sales tax. That is a bigger debate at the moment. I may have to do a commentary on that. And if you think the rich get away with more than the average person, you are not aware of the statistics. the greater the income, the more likely there will be an audit. That is also because IRS agents get better job reviews and promotions base on how much money they retrieve. Their careers are not helped by getting another 100 bucks from some poor factory worker. Of course, with all the new gun-toting agents, they will probably go deeper down the income scale.

      • frank stetson

        Taxes are taxes, the IRS is the IRS, but Democrats weaponing? We didn’t run audits on people the President didn’t like; that’s of Republicans watch. Suffice it to say, I agree that the IRS should be audited, there’s something unprofessional going on there.

        The President showing theirs. Hey, for no other reason than tradition; perhaps modern, but tradition so be it. IRS audits, absolutely. Also, arms-length from business and investments — all good. Hey, the job is most powerful man in the world, there’s only one, I think we can ask anything we want.

        As to down the line, Congress, federal workers, whatever. I have no problem with equal treatment for Congress. It’s a federal job in control of a $1.5T budget of our money. Why not? In business, there is no law preventing prospective employers from asking for this information. Personally, I can’t think on an item on my tax returns that I can think of any reason that someone can’t see. And if there is: allow them to hire someone to “scrub” then and provide a sanitized higher level version.

        Just not that big a deal for me.

      • Mike f

        Larry, Glad you showed your true colors in this response. Sales taxes are the most regressive taxes possible (for the majority of your readers, that means poor people pay significantly higher percentage of their income in taxes than rich people). Shame on you! But what else could I expect from a died in the wool republican than reducing taxes for the rich and placing higher tax burden on the poor…

        • larry Horist

          Mike F … I am afraid it is you who shows your true colors. Shooting off your mouth without knowing all the facts. If you ever read my previous columns on a National Sales Tax, you would know that I proposed it to be progress to removed the natural regressive nature — with no tax on basic foods and medicine and an excise tax on high end items, Under my proposal, many low income folks would be paying less than they do now and the wealthy more because there are no loopholes. So not only are you snide and insults inappropriate that are characteristic of your childish approach to discourse. Childish and wrong in a few short sentences. Typical.

          • frank stetson

            So, you have attempted to make a regression tax, progressive, and the proof is in the pudding as to how you picked winners and losers. The definition of “high end” is one set of winners and losers, and the exclusion of food and medicine to define “basic needs,” i.e what removes the problem of unequal discretionary spending is the other way you pick winnners and losers. What about clothes, utilities, and the other stuff of basic life where the poor spend most of their money and the rich hardly any of their money? Taxing that picks winners and losers too.

            Bottom line: perhaps you have cracked the uncrackable code, but the proof is in the pudding and I am pretty sure you still picked winners and losers. Hard not to with any code structure.

            Sales tax may be a way to do it, sure sounds nice, but without seeing how you picked your winners and losers, one can not tell.

          • Mike F

            Larry, Your lack of understanding of financial issues is front and center in this post. Have you ever really looked into this issue, or is this the horist norm just spouting off things that make you feel good? Yes, there are lots of things that you can delete from sales taxes, which probably would benefit the poorest people, but the fact of the matter is that the rich consume far less than those less wealthy. And, when you start saying this doesn’t need to be taxed and that doesn’t need to be taxed, just how high do you have to increase the tax on the items you do want to tax to pay the bills? Of course there is the little matter that if you make items dramatically more expensive, then people stop purchasing those items, which causes factory production to slow, leading to layoffs. A ridiculous idea from someone who claims to be an expert in almost everything, but in truth understands very little about how anything works….

          • Frank stetson

            Actually, the intro to “ here’s where you’re wrong,” you are roughly right and wrong…. Basically, yeah, Larry not great on finance/economy, but best here. Any tax can be made fair with enough caveats and therein the rub. Caveats pick winners and losers. Our current system has too many. Larry’s probably not enough but look at the attempt: while trying to tax usage in general, flat sales tax, he layers an escape clause for supposed essentials, then he layers on top a value tax for supposed high end stuff. Basically he’d trying to make it progressive based on what you buy, not what you earn. Winners and losers. It could be fair, but I bet it won’t be. Just like the current tax structure could be fair, but it isn’t. Winners and losers.

            Fyi; you mention the rich consuming less than the poor. I think you mean as a percentage of total income. And that’s the fallacy of a pure flat tax. What I like is a progressive tax based on discretionary income. With loopholes. That’s the fairest tax I can think of. Put that in your tax pipe and smoke it.

          • larry Horist

            Mike F … Your understanding of economic and tax policy is pure amateur stuff. It is a complex issue with LOTS of devil in the details. I have presented a concept with some examples. I did not write the 1000-page legislation that my proposal would require. There is a lot of modeling necessary to set the precise National Sales Tax rate and define the low-end exemptions and the high-end higher rate. Your rebuttal shows a shallow simple-minded appreciation of a complex issue — and of course the usual insults. Just to consider credibility, I have testified before Congress and several state legislature on federal tax issues. It has been a subject of lectures at Harvard, DePaul, Northwestern, etc. Among my clients have been The National Tax Limitation Committee, Steve Forbes (flat tax) and Nobel Laurate Milton Friedman. You? (I am hoping for an intelligent answer, but expecting sarcasm … or no response at all).

          • Frank stetson

            First one must decide to tax on income, spending, or both.

            Your proposal taxes spending with a head nod to income.

            You can be progressive, regressive, or both.

            Your proposal is regressive, with a head nod to progressive.

            I think there are better tax structures.

            I agree, not enough details to really judge, but pretty sure that’s where I would end up. And I aoplaud the reality of having to put progressive elements in your plan. Very complex.

            I thought Forbes was a flat taxer, but what did you tell Milton about taxes?

    • Cookie Bruno

      The only president that ever left office poorer than when he went in. According to FOrbes Trump lost about 2 Billion so I’m not interested in his returns. Although the Bidens show theirs willingly but the billions they get from China, Russia and Ukraine aren’t included. Everytime someone suggests Trump is lying could someone give a specific example I’m really interested. I remember when Rachel Maddow was able to get her hands on Trump’s returns and instead of checking them before making them public she got fooled. The year was 2005 and he paid $38M that year so she wound up red faced.

      • frank stetson

        30,000 lies and you can’t find an example? There’s a wiki page for that with all the othe sources listed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veracity_of_statements_by_Donald_Trump

        Losing 2B does not mean that he lost a cent. He hires very good bookkeepers and creates many business, like consultants without clients, that only have costs and no incomes, thus a loss, which he writes off on profits somewhere else, but the loss is fake. Remember, he told you, and you voted for him, he was the BEST businessman. Apparently losing 2B is considered being a brilliant businessman? Or a lie.

        He said he donated his Presidential salary to charities; that’s another example of a lie. The taxes you don’t want to see show that he did not donated his salary to charity in 2020; that means he only donated 75% of his salary; he lied again.

        I just watched Maddow’s review; she referenced the tax payment of 38M taxes up front. She contacted the White House and they responded before the show, even said “Good for the White House” for the reply. She noted that two pages are not his tax return of hundreds of pages, just two pages. So I am not sure the red face you are talking about. She was also upfront that the reporter got it “over the transom” and that they even could have come from Trump himself. He has done that before and it was a possibility, at least that’s what Maddow’s story covered. Like Hunter’s laptop, the data seems to look right.

  3. 9mm

    Income and tax money going out is not for the public but if dems push it into a law each of us will be showers of our income which is what dems are after for their socialist purge of we the American people big or small. Thus they can, and will access your taxes with no deductions as they dang well please with no come back from we stupid tax payers.

  4. Renee Palmer

    if they, congress want’s to beat the drum for another decade about President Trump’s Taxes … YOU made the TAX Code,
    there are many deduction’s for higher income bracket’s, Thanks to YOU ….
    WHAT, ” LAW ” did YOU pass to have those in high place’s to PUBLICLY show the WORLD someone else’s Tax Return’s ?
    this is Against the IRS’s rule ….

    oh, I forgot, this is just those who don’t and won’t bend a knee to you …
    remember , there is Karma, and what YOU Reap, yOU will also SOW ..

  5. Rat Wrangler

    An employer knows how much they are paying you and is not legally allowed to demand information about any other sources of income you might have. Many employers do have the right to have you sign an employment contract stating that you will not disclose any information about them or their processes to potential competitors. Perhaps, if we cannot see the tax records of elected officials, we should have them sign such documents that they cannot reveal any information about upcoming changes in laws or regulations, nor can they take any actions that might earn them a profit from such information. That way, if anyone suspects that a Congressperson or a member of their family has made money based on information not known to the public, all the pertinent facts should be trotted out, and if the allegations are true, contract violation is declared and the elected official is immediately removed from office.

    • Joseph S. Bruder

      The President is the Chief Executive of a branch of government. He or she, in theory, controls everything those branches of government are doing. The power to learn what a President is doing can’t be an “employment contract”, as the President has the power to ignore or renegotiate contracts. The power must be enshrined in law. It’s up to the other two branches of government to enforce the law.

      It’s stated above that an Obama appointee did not audit President Trump’s taxes, even though it’s part of the law. The IRS, regardless of who runs it, works for the President. Besides the fact that Republicans have cut the IRS budget to make it impossible to audit all the rich taxpayers who should be audited, is it possible that Trump didn’t get audited because he prevented it himself?

      Face it, Trump was a criminal, and Congress had to prove it. There were hearings, they saw illegality, and they released it. They have the power to get into specific tax returns precisely because they have oversight of actions of the Executive branch.

      • frank stetson

        jsb: I think there’s an investigation as to what happened. basically because somethings wrong with the IRS. As to why, too early yet but one theory is given Trump was in audit, IRS does not like to open a new audit on top of other audits. Time will tell if that’s what happened, but even so —- it would be wrong given it was the President.

        Most important federal jobs swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution, a higher level than the President I think.

        DOJ and IRS are two agencies that are supposed to be non-partisan, objective, and just follow the law. Any bias should be investigated and rooted out.

  6. Tom

    Larry, I am probably slightly leaning your direction on this issue. But…… To me it was not Trump not revealing his tax returns that bothered me. It was that all the way back in 2015-2016 he was saying he would not release them because he is under audit. Well, now we find out he was not under audit until 2018 – and I am sure he knew this. So he lied.

    As an Independent, I am really only interested in knowing two things: 1) Where is the candidates income coming from; 2) Where is their income going. And I think part of this audit should be an audit of all financial accounts the candidate has access too, including immediate family. Lets call this the “Biden Amendment”. And the only thing I am interested in is conflicts of interest such as funding anti-American organizations, selling influence, illegal channeling of income to avoid taxes, bribes and undocumented sources of income, unexplained income or rises in income held under the name of family, and any other abnormalities that would prevent the candidate from being uncompromising and effective leader for “We the People” and the free world.

    To me, it seems sensible that this can be accomplished, and the candidate certified as “financially clean” using a simple “red-yellow-green color system, by an IRS audit without actually releasing the tax documents – and the same for family. So in this area, I agree with you. This should only be done at the Federal level, for federal positions, and let the states decide for themselves what they will require for their state government positions.

    But you cannot have it both ways. My memory seems to recall you having advocated for slashing Biden’s proposed IRS budget increase to add IRS personnel., about 80,000 which would eliminate past excuses. This is most likely the root cause that allowed the problem to occur in the first place. And such audits are totally useless if not completed before the election so that We the People can include that information into our voting calculus. The output of such Federal audits should flow into the “Stetson Federal Election Resume” a great Dem idea which should be posted somewhere easy to access on the .gov website.

  7. Wes

    Liked most of the comments. Here is one. Biden and Hunter illegally took money from other countries. Not my opinion. Fact. What is good for one is not necessarily good for the other. Everyone has to file taxes every year. Good. But taking money from a Communist country, and then denying you know anything about it when it’s your own son. C’mon man. He isn’t estranged from him. I didn’t see Trump going after Democrats tax returns, or censoring them, sending DOJ to their houses, walking outside of their houses spewing hate. If they were, they should be held accountable. Haven’t seen it. Show me. Trump did not use the media to lie about the other candidate. Call anyone that supported Biden a racist or white supremacist. So why did the Democrats do that? Why didn’t the Democrats condemn the hate speech by Walters? Condemn the burning of businesses, looting, attacking business owners and citizens? Still going on. All that is a crime. But the Democrats sure talk about January 6. Insultingly comparing it to “911” or Pearl Harbor. One person was killed by a Police Officer. He has been being housed in a five star hotel. Why isn’t he in jail like supposed Capitol rioters. Some were there. Caused no chaos. Are in jail. Why has Ray Epps been hidden? He was encouraging violence. Although this may be my opinion, I think it’s accurate. Biden and most Democrats want to control every American. Their money, housing, what they drive, how much food they eat,. Globalists are encouraging every country to live like this. The crazy border overflow, crime waves in every city. Glad God is on my side. And believers. The struggles of this life are many. The devil comes to seek, tempt, and destroy. From experience, I know I am going to Heaven. Took years to finally believe this. No I am not perfect. Yes I do make mistakes. If you have a relationship with God, he will reveal this. If you are ignorant, he won’t. Once a believer, tell others. Jesus was hated and crucified. So the believers are. He died and went to Heaven and says we will also. Pray in Jesus name.

    • frank stetson

      Wes, certainly you are entitled to your opinions, but on the facts, I suggest a little fact checking before you run with your right-wing blogosphere fact facts. It just look shabby to print so many falsehoods that just can’t stand the light of day. LOOK IT UP is my suggestion before printing things that are questionable. For example:

      I can not find where Joe Biden has been paid by other countries as you stated. Can you actually find an example, even an allegation? There is no reason that he has to know how much Hunter was making; if I was Hunter, I wouldn’t tell him. Kids don’t share all the time. I don’t know what my kids make. That’s your assumption. Yes, he would probably know where he son worked, but he might not even know all his son’s clients. My parents never knew my clients or what I was working on. For decades. I don’t think Don knows what Jared is doing the billions that the murdering-hacking up body-devil Saudi Prince gave him to invest.

      Trump did go after the returns of people he did not like; IRS is being investigated on that. Look it up or I can give you the link if you can’t find it.

      “Former U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman writes in ‘Holding the Line’ that the administration went after critics like former Secretary of State John Kerry.” Rolling Stone. There’s a number of these, look them up, he is after all a petty, vindictive man, that I say is only President because Obama roasted him well which pissed him off at that Press Dinner years earlier. And yes, I have no proof except the look on Trump’s face as he left the dinner early; one of those Trumpian backed-up constipated duck faces he makes when pissed. It is a great roasting though. Happened during Obama years.

      Look it up, plenty of evidence of Trump weaponizing IRS and DOJ. Again, if you can’t find the links, I can provide. Jfgi though.
      “Wasn’t walking outside there (sic) houses spewing hate.” Bwhaaat? He sent them to the people’s house with gallows, weapons, and megaphones. The confederate flag flew inside the Capitol, that did not even happen in the Civil War…. They brought the emblem of the slave state to fly at the People’s House. Freakin election volunteers had to move to get away from the hate. Not public officials, not party zealots —- election volunteers for Christ’s sake. They tried to kidnap a governor…. Charlotte has houses, there was hate there….

      Funniest line in your screed: “Trump did not use the media to lie about the other candidate.” Come on man, you can’t be serious…..he attacked gold star mothers for supporting other candidates.

      “Call anyone that supported Biden a racist or white supremacist.” Really, do you want the list of what he called competitors and democrats? It’s a really long list. Look it up.

      “Why didn’t the Democrats condemn the hate speech by Walters?” Some did.
      “Condemn the burning of businesses, looting, attacking business owners and citizens?” They did.
      “Democrats sure talk about January 6. Insultingly comparing it to “911” or Pearl Harbor.” That’s really wrong but I have never seen it.

      Why would a police officer involved in a shooting be put in jail before trial?Blacks across the land would vote yes for that one. It’s just not the laws. Look it up,

      And there is no one in jail from 1/6 that did not cause chaos.

      Ray Eps does appear to be underground. He may be an FBI undercover, he may have flipped for the FBI, there’s something here, but too soon to tell.

      “From experience, I know I am going to Heaven.” Bold claim, but it’s yours.

      Like I said, you’re welcome to your opinions, but on your facts: BUSTED. Feel free to request any links you are incapable of finding. I can do so for all the facts I questioned above. Basically, you do not have too many correct. I suggest broadening your reading sources.

      Really folks, look them up before you spew your screed. Otherwise, you just look stupid when jerks like me point them out.

    • larry Horist

      Wes… To be accurate, there is no evidence that President Biden received any cash from Russia or China. But we know Hunter received millions. We also know that some referred to as the “Big Guy’ was to receive 10 percent of some of that money. We know that despite Papa Bidens millions, Hunter was paying his father’s “expenses.” All that needs to be investigated — and there is more than enough justification to warrant a serious investigation of Hunter, Uncle Frank Biden and the President,.

      With regard to January 6th, there is a lot of the facts and information that has not been explored, or investigated. Republicans in the new Congress will have an opportunity to provide some transparency were Pelosi’s one-sided committee was opaque.

      And do not worry about Frank, If you said the sun will rise in the morning, he would tell you to prove it.

  8. frank stetson

    “And do not worry about Frank, If you said the sun will rise in the morning, he would tell you to prove it.”

    And Larry would say his readers, apparently Wes is not one of them, already know all the relevant facts behind each of his “stories” since they are so well read and up-to-snuff on all current events Larry writes about. Someday he might tell them something they don’t already know.

    I am sorry that you take such offense to the simple comment: SHOW ME.

  9. glows

    Ι’m reаlly inspiгеd with your writing abilities and also with the laүout
    to your wеbloց. Is this a paid subject matter or did yоu
    modify it yourself? Anyway keep up the excellent higһ quality writing,
    it is uncommon to ѕee a nice weblog like this one these dayѕ..

  1. Horist: makes you wonder what Reagan did so poorly that moved him behind a couple of racists. Twas 154 scholars…

  2. Joseph S Bruder..... LMAO. Your list has the two most racist presidents of the 20th Century ahead of Reagan. FDR…