Wealthy Forbes Kerry Camp Tries to Hide Tax Returns

This story is back in the press again. It has legs. Bob Novak raises some excellent points here. Were it not for his politically opportunistic marriage to Teresa Heinz or his reliance on the Heinz wealth, Forbes Kerry would be no where right now. Money talks, doesn't it John Forbes Kerry? Now come clean on your campaign funding machine, err I mean your 'loving' wife.

Kerry gets off to a bumpy start

April 22, 2004

BY ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

Sen. John Kerry, having escaped intact a one-hour grilling by NBC's Tim Russert on ''Meet the Press'' Sunday, slipped in the closing minutes. When asked why his multi-millionaire wife was not making public her tax returns, he misinterpreted the law and the facts. He can only hope voters regard this as arcane trivia.

Three days before her husband's first full-length televised interview since he clinched the Democratic presidential nomination, Teresa Heinz Kerry became the first would-be first lady to refuse disclosure since the practice became common. Kerry told Russert the law required him but not his wife to reveal tax returns, when in fact there is no such law. He is voluntarily disclosing the information, and Mrs. Kerry is not.

This becomes politically critical, because no previous presidential candidate relied so much on his spouse's wealth. Without backing from Heinz ketchup money, it is fair to say John Kerry would not be his party's presidential standard-bearer and probably would not even be a U.S. senator today. Thus, refusal to release his wife's tax returns inevitably raises suspicions, however ill-founded, that the Kerrys have something to hide.

John Kerry, after more than 10 years in the Senate, was nearly broke in May 1995, facing a daunting 1996 election test against popular Republican Gov. William Weld, when he married the widow of the richest U.S. senator. The late Republican Sen. John Heinz of Pennsylvania left his wife, Teresa, $600 million. Kerry's net worth, according to his official disclosure submitted in 1995, ranged from a plus-$34,995 down to a minus-$130,000.

In January 1995, Mrs. Heinz paid $1.7 million cash for the shell of a town house on Boston's tony Beacon Hill, and restoration brought its value to nearly $3 million (though that figure is much higher today). She then transferred ownership of half the house to her new husband, and the mansion became the engine financing Kerry's campaigns.

Running behind Weld in 1996, Kerry loaned his campaign $900,000 by mortgaging the house. By Election Day, he had loaned it $1.7 million and was $2.1 million personally in debt. That began a laborious process of paying off his debt, including the 1996 mortgage, which was completed in 1999. Kerry was then positioned to dip into the Beacon Hill mansion for a future attempt to be president.

In December of last year, Kerry's campaign treasury was empty and his candidacy going nowhere. He then loaned his campaign $6.4 million by mortgaging his one-half share of the Boston home. Without that, Kerry's presidential bid probably could not have been revived.

At the end of the ''Meet the Press'' interview, Russert noted that 1984 Democratic vice presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro's husband first refused to release his tax returns -- adding to the furor over his alleged ethical problems -- before he succumbed to pressure and made public the information. Russert asked: Would Teresa Heinz Kerry finally release her tax returns?

''Well,'' said Kerry, ''my wife is doing exactly what the law requires, I mean, we have laws in America, and the law requires that the candidate release their tax returns.'' He then launched into Senate-speak about ''intrusive ethics forums.'' In fact, while the Federal Election Commission requires candidates to disclose their financial data, there is no mandate for tax returns.

Kerry had been thoroughly briefed by his staff for the Russert interview, but he went off on his own in addressing his wife's reluctance. Just why she is so reticent is a mystery, though it hardly could be concern about privacy considering the flood of personal publicity welcomed by the Kerrys. That excites curiosity about her charitable contributions (which are not reflected in official U.S. Senate financial disclosures). Release of Vice President Al Gore's tax returns in 1998 revealed an embarrassingly small charitable contribution of $353 on an income of $197,699.

Kerry aides shrug off as unimportant his incorrect statement that he was required to disclose tax returns but his wife was not. However, making up things in response to an unpleasant question can signal trouble ahead. Kerry's interview may have been smoother and more articulate than George W. Bush's press conference, but it planted seeds for the same credibility problems that trouble the president.

 

To be clear, the money originated from the money John Heinz left Teresa Heinz when he kicked the bucket. I will leave it up to you google monkeys to prove me wrong, but it is my thinking that this money came from the ketchup company which shares the Heinz name with John Heinz. Therefore, ketchup is in deed financing the Forbes Kerry campaign and it was that same ketchup money that bought the house on Beacon hill which Forbes Kerry has mortgaged to the hilt twice in order to keep his campaigns afloat over time. Clearly, Teresa's inheritance has been CENTRAL to the funding of Forbes Kerry's campaign. She should open up her tax returns so that we can judge for ourselves whether there is wrongdoing. Her refusal to do so only raises doubts. If she is clean, then there is nothing to fear. Obviously, she is very fearful at this time.

 

No Chump, I am right as usual. Were it not for the mortaging of the house in Boston, Kerry would have been forced to end his campaign. There would be no fundraising that we see him doing today if he had not done this.

Your logic here is horrible, as usual. What you cited took place after the Heinz money saved the day.

 

Uh, no. Forbes Kerry has yet to release *everything*. There are still doubts as to the evaluations from his superiors, as well as his medical records. What there are no doubts about are the following:

1) Forbes Kerry putting himself up for a Purple Heart every time he skinned his knee in the latrine

2) Forbes Kerry *voluntarily* tucking tail and running at the first chance to go home on a technicality.

3) Forbes Kerry trying to defer his service for a year so that he could stay in Paris

4) Forbes Kerry disgracing the entire military by desecrating US medals and accusing troops of war crimes and atrocities.

5) Forbes Kerry boosting the morale of Charlie by trying to end the War through his distortion campaign.

 

Can you please show me how Forbes Kerry got his three Purple Hearts. Show me how he received all three of them.

These word games you are playing with the records are amusing though, FB. You're just not very good at it.

 

Sam, since you seem to think you know... Please show me the medical records which *describe* the injuries that Forbes Kerry sustained which earned him the three Purple Hearts. Please provide the exact language that describes these injuries. I'm not talking about language such as "injuries received on such and such date". I'm talking about shrapnel wound, leg blown off, ear removed, etc.

Your previous attempt at 'proving' the extent of the injuries to John Forbes Kerry is laughable. It is perhaps even worse than FranchiseBlade saying "the records are released" and offering that up as conclusive, argument ending proof.

Sam, can you do what I ask of you?

 

Sam, you have failed to answer my question. THREE PURPLE HEARTS. THREE INJURIES. Where are the medical records that support the three injuries. Read the casualty report. It describes TWO injuries. TWO. As a 'lawyer' you should be able to read and interpret documents. You have clearly proven that you are unable to do this.

What is John Forbes Kerry hiding from us? Can someone prove that the third injury is *not* a fingernail scrape? Please. Someone. Anyone. I beg of you. SamFisher has failed in this task. He continues to play word games, which no one is buying.