Tax Evasion, as I understand it, is a Felony. It is tried by the same rules that other felonies are tried by. None of these people have been charged with Tax Evasion, though you keep making the assertion that they were.
Your comments about how you feel President Obama is dealing with this are matters of opinion and observation, and are useful for offering me a different point of view than my own. Your comments about how the tax bill is popular or not popular are useful to me, and your notion about where the sticking point are or may be is also useful. I don't have much of a sense of these things, and you have insight about these things that I don't have simply because you see things differently. You are a valuable resource to me and to others when you do this, and I appreciate the effort and time you put into it.
When you say that these people are Tax Evaders, these nominees, and I see no prosecutions or evidence of any, I think you are venturing onto different ground. I have seen evidence that the government has asked these people to pay interest and penalties for underpaying —or what the government feels in underpaying— their tax obligation, and it appears to me that you are right and the government is right, though I can't tell for sure. I have had the government ask me for money a year or two after I've paid taxes. I disagreed with their judgement on one occasion, and I made an error on another. I paid up on both, without a fuss. The government knows that most of us can't afford to keep tax lawyers on tap all the time, and the deck is stacked.
I do not see that there is sufficient evidence that the government has pressed actual legal charges of Tax Evasion against any of these Nominees to justify your use of the term with any accuracy. Pressing charges, it would seem to me, would be the absolute minimum requirement that would be necessary to make such an assertion, since we are a nation that still holds to the innocent before proven guilty theory (outside of our treatment of political prisoners, where apparently it does not seem to hold).
In this case, charges have not even been brought. This seems somewhat excessive.
In the case of your speeding ticket example, giving the ticket is bringing the charge, isn't it? And for me to call your example driver a reckless driver is more than a bit out of line, since I have no knowledge of Mr. E.D. being guilty of such an offense. And Mr. E.D. would certainly have a right to defend himself if charges had been brought. Nor would I have the right to assume that the charges were for vehicular homicide rather than for going five miles over the speed limit.
To make such assumptions is probably not useful if we are to safeguard our American legal system, O.J. or no O.J.
To blame O.J. for the defects in the prosecution case seems a bit silly, by the way. It is the Prosecution's job to make the case to the jury. They had a hand in jury selection, just as did the defense. Simply because the defense had excellent funding doesn't mean that the State should have lost. It means that the state should have presented the case in such a way as to be impossible to turn down. The State was simply used to working with all the advantages on their side, and did not prepare with the thoroughness necessary to win when their home court advantage wasn't as great as they were counting on it to be.
By the way.
Sincerely yours, Bob Kaven