- It can appear that one person is deceitful, when actually the person exclaiming the deceit is the deceiver.
In the 1980's I was a school district superintendent. It became necessary that a certain teacher be dismissed because he committed worker's compensation fraud. I put the teacher on administrative leave without pay and took the information to the governing board. Eventually the governing board decided to pay the teacher, but refused to allow him to return to work in the district.
During the period between the action of dismissing the teacher from working and his receiving his pay, he wrote letters to all of the newspapers in the area claiming I had committed a crime. He then went to the local sheriff's office and filed a complaint.
A reporter from one of the newspapers called and asked for an interview. I agreed, but said that we would meet in my attorney's office. We met, made small talk, and waited for the reporter to ask about the alleged crime. She didn't ever ask about the accusation. I suppose because I was well known in the area, and she was waiting for some kind of permission to talk about the crime. We did not make any acknowledgements, and no article was ever printed accusing me of anything. The papers didn't even publish any of his letters.
A few weeks later I was in a neighboring town about 60 miles away. I saw the now former teacher from a distance, walking toward me, and he saw me. He turned and went into a store. I continued down the street.
I few minutes later I felt an urgent impression to go to the local police department, about five blocks away, and ask if that former teacher had filed any complaints about me.
I walked into the office, and asked the clerk. She said, "What's your name again?" I told her and she said wait here a minute. A few minutes later a policeman came in to talk to me. He looked grave.
"You are Mr. Stark?" he asked.
"Yes," I answered. He asked for my I.D.
"I have a man on the phone who says you are about six blocks away from here committing a serious crime at this very instant. He's still on the line."
"I'm right here. He has done this before." I said.
The policeman and the clerk looked at each other. The officer said, "We'll take care of this. You can go."
A few months later the school district secretary brought me a newspaper clipping from one of the local papers about this same former teacher being arrested in a distant city over a thousand miles away. He had been arrested for the exact same crime he had accused me of.
So we see that an accuser is often the offender. He knows and understands the offense and can make a good case for his accusation.
In the case of Mitt Romney and his tax returns, it is probably the same kind of situation. By now, after four years of Barack Obama in charge, if Romney had not filed his tax returns correctly the Internal Revenue Service would have charged him with tax evasion.
With the administration and the Department of Justice being so aggressive in their pursuits, they have most certainly had attorneys, accountants, and tax experts pour over Romney's tax returns, looking for some reason to force the Internal Revenue Service into calling for an audit. In fact, Romney has said that he has already been audited. The IRS has not called for any further investigation.
Spiro Agnew, Vice President of Richard Nixon, was convicted of tax evasion while in office. If there were any evidence of tax evasion it would easily be found.
So we have the same classic example of the real deceiver making accusations with no documentation and no witnesses.
That's why the sixth amendment to the constitution says that "the accused ... has the right to be ...confronted with the witnesses against him..."
The Democrats were in complete control of the entire U.S. Government, both houses of congress and the presidency. They could have changed the tax laws if they thought wealthy people should have paid more taxes.
Keep your tax returns, Mitt..... Don't release any more. Releasing them will only confuse everyone because most people don't even understand their own tax returns which are only a few pages long. So how could any lay person, especially reporters, understand hundreds of pages? It just gives more fodder for deception, and the twisting and corruption of truth.