Slashdot Mirror
Secret Service Investigating Romney Tax Hack Claim
A federal investigation has been launched after hackers claimed to have stolen Mitt Romney’s tax returns. The hackers have given Romney until September 28th to pay $1 million in bitcoins or they say they will release the returns. From the article: "The claim was made in a post on the Pastebin site on Sunday that alleged that Romney's federal tax returns were taken from the offices of PriceWaterhouse Coopers in Frankin, Tenn., on August 25 by someone who snuck into the building and made copies of the document. The message author threatened to release the files publicly on September 28 and said copies of the files had been given to Democratic and Republican leaders in that county. Democrats have made Romney's refusal to release his tax returns a key point in their criticism that he is not in touch with working class voters."
Someone actually thinks bitcoins are worth having.
Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
I don't know about the veracity of the claim that came in yesterday, but one of the things that I thought about when Romney started trying to surpress this information was that is was a just about the same thing as waiving a red flag in front of a bull. It's bound to make a "hacker" go for the ultimate crack and get this information (that most of us think should be public anyway) out of the electronic vault and onto the net.
It also, IMHO, shows that Romney and his band of followers live in a bubble of corporate reality and not in the real world. Only someone one the C** would be arrogant enough to think they could keep this type of information a secret forever when you're that visible to the public and when you're decisions are going to have immediate and lasting consequences for the entire world.
I remember when Bush II was being attacked as a draft dodger. Someone released faked documents, which the news media picked up as real. When they were discredited, no one would touch the issue anymore, whether it was legitimate or not.
This could turn out to be a similar ploy to help Romney - by associating the tax returns with criminal activity, it might get too hot for the Dems to touch, making an otherwise legitimate issue go away.
The original release and on pastebin makes no mention of the money. Speculation at the moment is that someone took the original release and "added" a ransom and resubmitted it to pastebin.
"$1 million in bitcoins" ... and they say *Romney's* out of touch with the real world?
Possible, but I am thinking this is actually part of a larger ploy.
Since anyone of even a modicum of technological capability, who actually uses BitCoins, knows that they are somewhat traceable, I wonder why someone would demand such an outlandish sum in them. Let's see here...we have the key words BitCoins, hackers, and all of it tied to a presidential election.
We all know that for the last several months, the press has been falling over themselves to paint BitCoins in the darkest light possible, playing up every rumoured instanced of malfeasance even remotely tied to them. We also know that the military, for lack of enemies, has recently decided that their next shipment of bread and butter will have to come from the 'cyber-crime' division, and that they are desperate to find a playmate, domestic or otherwise, to justify the purchase orders already signed and dated, in top brass's top drawers. And seeing how the BitCoin community has been relatively effective in educating people with regards to the f*cked up claims the press loves to make, perhaps someone decided to take it to the next level. By launching an attack on a presidential campaign, you are guaranteed coverage in the press, at decibel levels well above the normal white noise; you also guarantee that the attacked opponent will respond with a calculated defence (denial, followed by revenge if / when elected), with the added bonus that since you went after a minor but incredibly irritating election issue (his tax returns, and it is), he will take it personally. If he is elected, he will willingly sign any law that mentions this incident and 'justice'; if he loses, the other guy will do the same, as he doesn't like the idea of what happened to his opponent possibly happening to him or his friends. It's the equivalent of a Morton's fork, where the tech industry is damned if they do, damned if they don't. The military gets paid either way, though they won't be invited to any tech parties for a few years.
Hackers (unknown enemy, up there with the boogey-man these days, hiding under your bed and in your computer, going to get you), BitCoins (another unknown, a 'competing' currency to the US dollar, so it's 'patriotic' to be against it; plus 'hackers' and drug dealers use it, unlike the US Dollar, so it must be bad), and a presidential election (when politicians make a black list, and begin adding names).
The best part is, even if the hackers are arrested, we may never get the people behind it all. Sounds a little conspiracy-ish, but it is in the CIA handbook, that you 'groom' someone else to do the dirty work, then get rid of them.
I am John Hurt.
Privacy for all! Unless of course its someone we dont like.
Is that the mantra? Is there some reason we shouldnt be going after someone committing this kind of blackmail: "Give us money or we put your private info (potentially including SSN) out for the world to see?" Wow, what heroes.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=2009+FBAR+amnesty
tl;dr: In early 2009, the Swiss bank UBS was indited in a massive tax-evasion scheme and as part of their settlement with the American IRS, they revealed thousands of names of account holders (to the IRS, but not to the public). The IRS then instituted an amnesty program, where if you came clean about your previously undisclosed offshore accounts in your 2009 tax returns, your penalty would be reduced and you wouldn't go to jail for tax evasion.
Romney is only releasing his tax returns from 2010 or later.
Privacy for all! Unless of course its someone we dont like.
Right now, suspected terrorists don't get any privacy. That's why we have people getting molested at airports.
Well that guy is an idiot.
1. If he does have the real document how will he prove it? I mean all Romney will need to say is Those are not my returns but a forgery made by some crazed radical liberal who is willing to lie and cheat to get his party to win. The main stream democrats will not use this information because it is not from legal means, If they do you can get the republican conspiracy theory linking the democrats to an event similar to Watergate.
2. Bit coins? Really? here is a guy who is publicly saying he committed a crime. FBI goes to the Bit Coin Servers with a warrant sends the million and tracks every Bit to see who finally receives it. Oh it goes to a PO Box... That is OK, you get an FBI agent waiting right next to that PO Box to arrest anyone who opens it.
3. How politically damaging is the truth anyways? It seems like the only people who really care will not vote for Romney anyways. He already admits that he pays less percentage in tax then most Americans. After months of digging you may find that he missed the rule here and there. But then the other side will find that he could have benefited from other areas where it balanced out.
There is the argument If Romney doesn't have anything to hide then why isn't he releasing his taxes. This is on the same vane the only people who should opposed to airport searches are people with something to hide. Why would he not want to release taxes? Because his taxes are long and complex, it isn't like our W2 done on the simple form. His opponents will distract his discussion of what he considers important issue and bogged down defending every line item in his taxes that he probably paid a team of accountants to do for him.
I personalty don't care for Romney and I don't think I will vote for him. But I am sick of this extremism partisan crap. Where we actually celebrate politically motivated criminals who brake the law that causes something to favor our political stance.
These hackers are not hero's, they are petty criminals who can't stand a world where people have opposing views to them.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
"you all" = "top level plutocrats
No, we can't use Pluto any more, it's not a planet. Uranuscrats?
Is that the mantra? Is there some reason we shouldnt be going after someone committing this kind of blackmail: "Give us money or we put your private info (potentially including SSN) out for the world to see?" Wow, what heroes.
The SSN was never intended to be a secret number, just unique.
As for tax returns, many countries see this as public information - the lists are made public, and searchable. Why should this information be excluded from transparency rules regarding government sources of income? What's the rationale for keeping the information secret?
For me at least, it isn't a case of 'should we go after them', but how much more attention gets paid to a case by law enforcement if the target if famous or politically connected. The Palin one was is a classic example... a type of hack that is not unusual and gets reported to the police fairly frequently, but very little is done about it. Yet all the stops came out to track down the person when Palin's emails were stolen.
I am all for people like this being tracked down and arrested for their crimes, I just wish it did not matter so much who your victim is.
Ahm.. part of the point of bitcoins is they are hard (in theory at least) to track. There are no 'bit coin servers' the FBI can go to, just a distributed network of anonymous nodes. In theory asking for a ransom to be paid like this makes a lot of sense.. it doesn't have the traceability of government backed currency (or the banking system it travels through) nor does it have the physical delivery problem of something like gold. In practice, if they wanted to expend significant resources (the kind that only get expended if you piss off someone really powerful), they could probably compromise or surround enough nodes to maybe track the coins being spent and try to watch where they transition back into goods.... maybe.
and
seem to have a slight discrepancy lol. So they want $1 mil in bitcoins and yet they sent copies to "Democratic and Republican leaders in that county." Oh yes, I'm so sure those will never see the light of day if he pays after they gave them to the democrats. No wonder these people were too stupid to hack it digitally. They're operating this like complete morons.
Wait, you don't think a crime done for the purpose of influencing the outcome of the election for the POTUS is more serious than one that is done just to annoy someone or for financial gain? By that logic the entire Watergate scandal should never have been prosecuted - after all, it was just a simple office burglary.
Mitt Romney pays less taxes (~15%) because his money was taxed when it was initially earned and now he's paying taxes on his investments so he's being taxed twice - a fact often omitted form reports.
By that logic, my plumber should only have to pay 15% on his taxes, since that money was already taxed once when me and all of his other customers earned it. But of course things don't work that way for ordinary people, only for the 1%.
How in the world did you go from 'these crimes should be prosecuted even if the victim is a nobody' to 'watergate should never have been prosecuted'?
I am just tired of the 'people with power deserve more justice then regular people'. Crow, a crime like this probably has less personal impact then one on a regular person... you think something like this would actually impact Romney in any significant way? Hacks like this are about as politically dangerous as fumbling a line during an interview. On the other hand when some average person has their personal information stolen it can be life destroying. So in a very real way this is a less serious crime since it is unlikely to have much impact on anyone or anything.
That's not really double-taxation. If I work to earn $1M and pay $300K in taxes (or whatever it is after deductions) then I have paid taxes on the $1M. If I then invest $200K of that after-tax money in something, and sell it a year later for $1M, then the $800K difference has not been taxed yet. My understanding is that it's this $800K that gets the 15% rate, and the original $200K is not taxed again.
If I go on to invest and sell, then I continue to pay 15% on all of that income, independent of my declared income from working, and regardless of how successful I am at it. How is that being taxed twice? I think this is how many people understand it, and it is the basis for most of the complaints that I hear. Is it incorrect?
Well bitcoins are like wire transfers...its all just meaningless account numbers, but.... the movement has to be consistent. So if I give you X bitcoins, I can see the account they go to when you spend them.... but its just another meaningless account number.
Where things get interesting is, that they mix.... so, if I see a transfer to another account, I can then trace any other transfers to or from that account, or other ones it is associated with.
If alice the crook uses her coins to buy a service from bob, then bob mixes her coins with others of his when he spends them, maybe from some tips he recieved from posting a tip bitcoin account on some web forum.... then he becomes easy to link.... and question. its "old fashioned police work" from there.
Of course, if they are careful, and only use those coins for relatively anonymous transactions which they can turn into cash or unassociated bitcoins.... that trail could go cold fast.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
proving once more that bitcoins are the currency of thieves, drug dealers, pedophiles and gun runners
As are dollars. There are about 8 million bitcoins at about $11 a piece. That's 88 million dollars worth of bitcoins. That doesn't even come close to the money stolen by ONE GUY at MF Global.
If you despise thieves, aim your hatred at the finance industry and the politicians that protect them. Bitcoin is negligible compared to these crooks.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
The thing about Bitcoins is you can "transact" them into something completely unattached to the original. So, $1M worth of crypto codes gets sent to the blackmailer, they immediately turn it into $1M worth of equally valid, but completely different crypto codes (probably using servers scattered around the world) and poof, the trail is dead. That's the good, bad, and ugly of Bitcoin in a nutshell.
How is he being taxed twice?
You pay tax on your income, you invest your income (principal) and pay tax on the investment's earnings. You don't pay tax again on the investment principal.
Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
I didn't think anybody was dumb enough to think that we have the resources to "track down and arrest" someone for every crime that is reported. So I assumed (incorrectly) that your point was every instance of a crime should be treated the same as all other incidents of that crime. Since we can't possibly prosecute them all, we should either prosecute none, or just randomly pick some to prosecute. It is unlikely that Watergate would have been prosecuted to the extent it was in those circumstances.
Like it or not, prosecution of crime (like everything else we do) is going to have priorities assigned. We do not have infinite resources. And like it or not, any crime which is done for the purposes of influencing an election is going to get a high priority, whether you think the crime would actually influence the election or not.
Back in my day we used to call people who snuck into buildings and stole things "burgalers".
And then they invented spell-check.
Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
There is no law 'requiring cabinet nominees to submit a shed load of documentation'. There certainly is no law that says you lose your right to privacy by virtue of being a cabinet nominee. Now, you may not get confirmed by the senate (ie voted in) if you don't voluntarily give up some of your privacy, but that is far, far different than saying you lose your right of privacy.
Now, if the American people decide not to vote for Romney because he did not disclose his tax returns, that is up to them. But saying that he forfeits his right to privacy (and laws protecting such privacy) simply because he is running for office is ludicrous.
There is a huge difference between demands for financial disclosure and forced disclosure.
There is a simple solution to this. If the American people 'demand' that he disclose his finances, and he doesn't, don't vote for him! What could be simpler.
Slashdot logic: Something i like: is being associated with something bad? It must be a false flag attack.
China is actively working to subvert government it systems? Irrelevant. Cyber-Command will be built on the crumbling remains of bit coin. Srsly?
What kind of ridiculous non sequitur is this? Can we just agree that GPs post was ridiculous nonsense, that the rhetoric is uncalled for, and that the blackmail should be prosecuted?
The SSN was never intended to be a secret number, just unique.
Reality intrudes. Regardless of how dumb of an idea it is to have SSNs be treated as secret, you would be silly to give yours out.
Why should this information be excluded from transparency rules regarding government sources of income
Because its personal income; when Romney files a tax return, he does so as a private citizen.
I don't agree this post is insightful. Interesting, maybe, but being wrong is not insightful. You said:
1. If he does have the real document how will he prove it? I mean all Romney will need to say is Those are not my returns but a forgery made by some crazed radical liberal who is willing to lie and cheat to get his party to win. The main stream democrats will not use this information because it is not from legal means, If they do you can get the republican conspiracy theory linking the democrats to an event similar to Watergate.
The reason the scammers probably don't have any real tax return information is that none seems to have been leaked. Proving you have information can be done in many ways, such as releasing the exact amount of a certain deduction, or the SHA-1 hash of a whole electronic document. Proving they have the real thing is so easy, we can assume it's a scam if they didn't. Now, having Romney lie and deny it's genuine would quickly end his chances of winning the election. Reporters would come out of the woodwork to verify random facts from the returns. I could probably verify a few from home using Google. They lie would be almost instantly exposed.
2. Bit coins? Really? here is a guy who is publicly saying he committed a crime. FBI goes to the Bit Coin Servers with a warrant sends the million and tracks every Bit to see who finally receives it. Oh it goes to a PO Box... That is OK, you get an FBI agent waiting right next to that PO Box to arrest anyone who opens it.
Here you're simply ignorant of how bit coins work. There are no "servers", it's P2P. The other end receiving the bitcoins would likely be a Tor node in Russia, where our FBI couldn't even trace the packets. The FBI could watch as the bitcoins get traded through many transactions, but they couldn't even identify what nation those trades occur in, and certainly not who owns the various bitcoin destinations. That's why bitcoins are valuable. They enable criminals to launder money.
3. How politically damaging is the truth anyways? It seems like the only people who really care will not vote for Romney anyways. He already admits that he pays less percentage in tax then most Americans. After months of digging you may find that he missed the rule here and there. But then the other side will find that he could have benefited from other areas where it balanced out.
This issue is severely damaging his credibility and may cost him the election. The one thing we know about Romney is he is quite willing to change his behavior and even stated beliefs in order to maximize his likelihood of being elected. Therefore, the information in his returns is more damaging than Mitt's estimated fallout from not revealing them.
There is the argument If Romney doesn't have anything to hide then why isn't he releasing his taxes. This is on the same vane the only people who should opposed to airport searches are people with something to hide. Why would he not want to release taxes? Because his taxes are long and complex, it isn't like our W2 done on the simple form. His opponents will distract his discussion of what he considers important issue and bogged down defending every line item in his taxes that he probably paid a team of accountants to do for him.
Are you really comparing the need Americans have for trusting their future president to a guy who doesn't want to be groped at the airport? Romney's greatest argument for the presidency is his business background, yet he refuses to reveal what sort of business he's been doing. To continue with the airport analogy, before I'd let that guy trying to get on the plane take control of our country, I'd do a full body cavity search. I'd take blood samples and have them tested for drugs. I'd get a stool sample and check for parasites.
I personalty don't care for Romney and I don't think I will vote for him. But I am
Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
For all the people complaining about making private things public:
1) At one time in the US, tax returns were public information. When the IRS was new, everyone's info was published to show that everyone paid their share. I'm not saying we need to force people back to this precedent, but just saying that there is a a precedent.
2) The precedent of Presidential Candidates releasing tax returns for 10 years was started by... George Romney, Willard M. Romney's dad. His reasoning was that any one year could be a fluke, but 10 years would show a pattern. Again, not saying they should have broken in and taken his taxes, but the precedent was set.
The people should be prosecuted. They've broken the law and should face consequences. But anyone rising up in anger against the unprecedented nature of this needs to look at precedents.
It did. Originally all tax returns were public. Not saying whether they should or shouldn't be public, just saying they had the right before, and they then chose not to.
And then they pay taxes on the "Gains" not the part they previously earned. Nothing is taxed twice. We need to keep pointing that out because the GP was a complete moron.
While I understand (if not entirely agree with) the logic behind capital gains taxation, It's not that simple for Romney. There are smoking guns in the current returns he's released, such as the disclosure of a >$100m IRA. Given that contributions are limited to something around $50k/year (at most, assuming a self-directed IRA), that's the accounting fraud/tax evasion equivalent of having a body with a bullet hole in it. You still have to find the murder weapon to prove the crime, but there's no question that something went horribly wrong. The only way for that kind of IRA inflation to happen is if you misrepresent the value of assets you transfer through the accounting firewall into your IRA, or manipulate the value post-transfer.
There's also the question of whether he paid the proper gift tax on the transfer of $100m in assets to a trust for his sons (the existence of which is also revealed in his currently-released tax return). His own vague statements on his tax payments imply that he hasn't, because the tax resulting from that one action would have been >$30m. Gift tax is rarely audited aside from asset transfers shortly before death, so many people ignore it for both that reason and the reason that it has a statute of limitation of something like only 3 years.
Given the above, let alone the vagaries of complex and legitimately grey (as in not even the regulators know for sure whether it's OK, so no one can say for sure that they're illegal) tax avoidance strategies routinely employed in the management of that kind of accumulated wealth, it's mind-boggling why Romney released any tax returns at all. That being said, this extortion attempt is really a stroke of luck for him, as it will make the issue toxic and untouchable whereas it would probably have otherwise dogged him clear to election day.
because his money was taxed when it was initially earned
Not necessarily. Consider this set of examples from the New York Times
To see the value of this strategy, think about investing with pretax versus after-tax dollars. Suppose Jill works at an investment bank, and her employer pays her a year-end bonus of $500,000. The bonus is taxed at a combined state and federal rate of 50 percent, leaving her with $250,000 to invest. She invests that $250,000 in her friend Jack’s private equity fund, and the investment doubles in value over five years. The $250,000 of new gain is taxed at the 15 percent long-term capital gains rate, leaving her with $212,500 and an overall after-tax amount of $462,500.
Now consider Jack, who works at the private equity fund. To satisfy his co-investment obligation, Jack must invest in the fund. Under a fee waiver program, he waives $500,000 of his portion of the management fee and credits his capital account with that amount. After the $500,000 doubles over five years, and is then taxed on the full amount at capital gains rates on the back end, Jack walks away with $850,000 — roughly 84 percent better off than Jill, who invested with after-tax dollars.
I would love to see them. I'll bet he hasn't paid taxes in years. They offshore their profits and domesticate their losses.
I have no proof for my ideas, but given the very personal nature of the tax return disclosure tradition (it was his dad that started it), the fact that he refuses to release more tax returns tells me there's a not-so-tinfoil-hat-crazy conspiracy to hide something.
Personally, I think that he failed to disclose his offshore wealth, and he used the IRS' amnesty program to declare it all and pay the back taxes that he previously dodged. When he said a few months ago that he paid "at least 13%" of his income in taxes in each of the last ten years, I think that he is stating his "revisionist" tax rate after paying his back taxes, not what he originally filed and paid.
Given how few years of taxes he released, I have to believe that there's an indication of this occurring very recently - or at least an indication of him settling this debt recently. I suspect that either the 2008 or 2009 returns would show amendments or other notes that would explain this in far more detail, and hence his inability to release even a few more years' returns to mollify critics.*
* (Not that releasing two more years of tax returns would mollify most.)
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Did Mitt Romney accept the IRS Tax Amnesty program in 2009? Did he disclose offshore accounts used as tax havens?
Was Romney part of these 14,700 Americans?
What could be simpler.
A third party making the entire issue moot.
The real problem here has nothing to do with privacy, or conflicts of interest, or even really anything at all about the sources and magnitude of Romney's income. The real problem here comes from focusing on Mit's taxes, from demands for birth certificates, from stains on blue dresses, from the Swift Boat Veterans Against Obama, from all the myriad piddling little distractions, that dominate the media coverage of arguable one of the most important choices the world makes every four years.
We have people dying in deserts, we have the entire world economy on the brink of ruin, we have people starving and farmers going bankrupt while millions of tons of red spring wheat rots in warehouses, we get irradiated and/or molested if we want to travel, we have both sides of the political spectrum eroding the buffer that keeps the poor from eating the rich... And we quibble over whether fabulously-rich-guy made "disgusting" or "-obscene" amounts of money by outsourcing jobs to China???
I support these guys releasing Mit's taxes solely because it will take one (of many) non-issues out of the spotlight.
Which is relevant why? Maybe you should change your laws but until you do don't go pretending that what other countries do is an argument to defend breaching someone's privacy. Stoning is included in the laws of 7 countries, that does not mean it is less wrong if I stone someone to death in a country that doesn't allow it.
There's plenty of reasons to think this should be public; none of it excuses this, nor means it shouldn't be condemned. It's amazing how hypocritical many readers are when it comes to thinking 'anything' they do should be private and yet having no qualms about defending those who out private information about others.
Four years of ZIRP have not been kind to the accounting fiction known as the "trust fund".
Yes, that's why it's down to 20 years.
The trust fund ratio, which indicates the number of years of program cost that could be financed solely with current trust fund reserves, peaked in 2008, declined through 2011, and is expected to decline further in future years. After 2020, Treasury will redeem trust fund assets in amounts that exceed interest earnings until exhaustion of trust fund reserves in 2033, three years earlier than projected last year. Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient to pay only about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2086.
source
As for the "accounting fiction" the trust fund is invested solely in Treasury Bonds, those are the AAA rated investments backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Goverment. You can be an anarchist if you want, but the U.S. Government has never failed to pay back a dollar of treasury bond debt. They get shitty interest rates though (currently 10 year notes are returning a negative interest rate -- you get less back in 10 years than you invest up front, but they still sell easily).
The reasoning behind lower taxes for long term capital gains is that it lowers taxes for rich people, and Republicans support lowering taxes for rich people.
"Encouraging investment in activities that create jobs" is a lie that's used to sell it to those who don't benefit from the tax cut.
And it's obvious that it's a lie, because it is IMPOSSIBLE to encourage investment. *ALL* money gets invested NO MATTER WHAT. If you create a new company, you've invested your money. If you REFUSE to create a new company and just stash your money in a bank account, then the bank will loan that money to someone else who will invest it. It gets invested either way.
About the only way to NOT invest money is to hide it in your mattress, and there is no tax rate short of 100% where it would be preferable to hide your money in a mattress instead of a bank account.
The lower rate is nothing other than a tax break for already having money.
paintball
It's a gimmick. It's right up there with having a Philly cheesesteak in Gino's versus Pat's. American politics is filled with those kinds of traps.
All the issue is there to serve is to suggest Romney is "not one of you" and fits the stereotype of "rich white republican."
Truth is, Obama is rich, too. You can't really do federal politics without being quite wealthy.
Time wasted talking about tax returns, or birth certificates, or whatever is time spent not talking about the facts. And when you look at FACTS, both Republicans AND Democrats have each done massive harm to this country over the past 80 years.
More Twoson than Cupertino
That's the core of this : the suspicion is that Romney was one of the many thousands who took advantage of the Treasury's 2009 amnesty for those illegally evading taxes through the use of off-shore banks.
My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
A fine example of whataboutery. The issue is not that Romney is wealthy - it's a matter of public record that his wealth is double that of the last eight presidents combined - but that he may have been illegally evading taxes through the use of off-shore banks, and took advantage of the 2009 amnesty.
My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
Where are your messiah's income tax returns
12 years worth, for both Obama and Biden:
http://www.barackobama.com/tax-returns/
Your move.
With the first link, the chain is forged.