« Gore On Prez Run: "I Haven't Ruled It Out," But.... | Home | Edwards Camp Blisters Rudy For Saying He "Usually" Hears Dems Blame America For 9/11 »

Video: Edwards Decrying Off-Shore Tax Havens In 2004

The Edwards campaign's disclosure in today's papers that he held more than $7.5 million in investments in the Fortress Investment Group -- an outfit that owned offshore funds that served as tax havens for investors -- is almost certainly going to stoke keen interest among rivals and reporters in Edwards' past statements about such funds.


And wouldn't you know it, but one such statement has already popped up on YouTube. Here's Edwards, slamming offshore havens in 2004, during his debate with Veep Cheney:




Here's a transcript of Edwards' remarks:

"Offshore loopholes for companies avoiding taxes ought to be closed.? When the vice president was CEO of Halliburton, they took advantage of every offshore loophole available. They had multiple offshore companies that were avoiding taxes. Those are the kind of things that ought to be closed. They ought to be closed. They ought to be closed for anybody. They ought to be closed whether they're personal, and they ought to be closed whether they apply to a corporation.?"

While the current financial disclosures are likely to prompt rivals and reporters to do more digging into past Edwards quotes like these, it should be noted that Edwards spokesperson Kate Bedingfield has defended Edwards' involvement with Fortress by pointing out that the company recently ended the controversial practice when it went public.


"John Edwards believes offshore tax shelters are wrong," Bedingfield told the Washington Post recently. "As president, he will end them. By voluntarily going public, Fortress has ended the practice of using offshore tax shelters for deferred compensation and has committed itself to a whole set of transparency and disclosure obligations that no other hedge fund has committed itself to before."


5 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

While Edwards is taking well-deserved heat for his employment by one of these vulture hedge funds, i haven't a heard a peep out of anyone regarding Hillary's thrilling defense of these crooks as a vital part of American enterprise during The Debate.

I guess the Clintons, both of them, are allowed any manner of unsavory activity as usual.

Best, Terry

user-pic

Terry, You can't be serious. The Clintons get bashed for everything under the sun, whether it's deserved or not.

And how exactly does Hillary's statement about hedge funds during the debate qualify as "unsavory activity"?

user-pic

It should be noted that Clinton, Obama, Edwards and Dodd have all taken substantial amounts of money from Hedge Funds. They should give it back and not take anymore in future. No Dem should be beholden to these predators who are looting and destroying America's industrial infrastructure - Chrysler being the latest example.


UA

user-pic
Terry, You can't be serious. The Clintons get bashed for everything under the sun, whether it's deserved or not.

Hogwash.

Compared to the Teflon President, Reagan, this pair is slicker than grease on a cue ball.

Praising hedge funds as a boon to American industry is a marvelous example of the way this pair operates.

Want to explain how Hillary was able to skate on the crooked cattle futures dealing? Some other customer or customers of her broker had to take a hit so Hillary could make a bundle the first day. It was simply impossible for her to make the rapidfire trades required to accumulate the profits shown on her very first day as a trader.

Most of what we heard was that people just didn't want to admit that Hillary was able to compete in a man's world, etc..

Edwards takes a rap and sheepishly admits to fault. Hillary is invisible.

And how exactly does Hillary's statement about hedge funds during the debate qualify as "unsavory activity"?

They don't and I never said they did. What the drivel amounted to was leading on the sheep that are remarkably willing to believe or at least overlook such nonsense.

Do you really want to get into more unsavory dealings of the lady? Is not the cattle futures enough for you?

For sure the Clintons have been very fortunate in their most obstreperous enemies. Everyone should be so lucky as to have the like of a DeLay or Falwell as enemies. With such enemies, you don't even need a Reverend Sharpton for a friend.

Best, Terry

user-pic

I don't so much care who people get their money from for campaigns--receiving money does not really make someone beholden to a donor as president unless they choose to be. But even if that were a problem to me, I find it much more revealing to be investing in something you claim to be against. I've been skeptical of Edwards because he wasn't exactly and anti-Poverty Senator--when he had a chance to at least try something--and this doesn't help. He keeps pushing me away.

Leave a comment

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address