The Democrats still don't get they are dealing with gangsters, gangsters whom the public wants out of Congress, off Wall St., and in jail.
I will be the first to laugh at the absurdity of Scott Brown's ridiculous claim that Elizabeth Warren should be investigated for legally checking a box twenty years ago. But, the Democratic response to this patently manufactured "outrage" has been typically defensive, almost reflexively ceding the initiative to the sneer-and-smear artists of the GOP.
The Democrats need to be of the Sean Connery (Untouchables) school of politics:
They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue.Below the fold, you will find my suggestion for an offensive response to the Brown campaign's crapola.
Scott Brown took office on February 4, 2010. A year later (only 15 months ago) there was a controversy about a different political figure's problem with a check box:
February 10, 2011 04:30 PMThis issue was still being ignored as late as September, 2011:
Clarence Thomas "Forgot" 20 Years of Disclosure? Really?
Slaughter, 19 Colleagues, Call for Investigation into Justice Thomas's Non-DisclosureThis entire ethics scandal unfolded while Brown was in the Senate. But, do a google search for "Scott Brown" and "Clarence Thomas". All you will find are random pages where both men's names appear in different stories or lists. Scott Brown has said nothing about Clarence Thomas's check boxes.
Under Law, Judicial Conference Must Refer Issue to US Attorney General
WASHINGTON – Congresswoman Louise Slaughter, Ranking Member of the House Rules Committee, together with 19 Members of Congress, today sent a letter to the Judicial Conference, requesting that the Conference follow the law and refer the matter of Justice Clarence Thomas's non-compliance with the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to the Department of Justice. Throughout his entire tenure on the Supreme Court, Justice Thomas has checked a box titled "none" on his annual financial disclosure forms, indicating that his wife had received no income, despite the fact that his wife had in fact earned nearly $700,000 from the Heritage Foundation from 2003-2007 alone.
Slaughter said, "To believe that Justice Thomas didn't know how to fill out a basic disclosure form is absurd. It is reasonable, in every sense of the word, to believe that a member of the highest court in the land should know how to properly disclose almost $700,000 worth of income. To not be able to do so is suspicious, and according to law, requires further investigation. To accept Justice Thomas's explanation without doing the required due diligence would be irresponsible."
Section 104(b) of the Ethics in Government Act requires the Judicial Conference to refer to the Attorney General of the United States any judge who the Conference "has reasonable cause to believe has willfully failed to file a report or has willfully falsified or willfully failed to file information required to be reported."
Throughout his entire tenure on the Supreme Court, Justice Thomas checked a box titled "none" on his annual financial disclosure forms, indicating that his wife had received no income, despite the fact that his wife had in fact earned nearly $700,000 from the Heritage Foundation from 2003-2007 alone. The Heritage Foundation was a prominent opponent of the Affordable Care Act, an issue that is expected to be considered by the Supreme Court in the near future.
So, Senator Brown, how is it that you have no problem with a Supreme Court justice illegally checking a box, when that illegality covers up non-payment of tax on $700,000 plus a monstrous conflict of interest regarding his wife's paymasters and his court rulings?
You are so scrupulous about one twenty year old check box; but you can't do jack about a festering scandal by a disgraceful, venal bum who soils the court robes he wears.
You, Senator Brown, are a hypocrite; you are a partisan jerk; you throw mud because you are too much of a lightweight to fight fair against Ms. Warren.
Tell us what you think about Justice Thomas's check boxes. Are they a "character issue".