In order:
Jude30,
You give your location as Midwest. I live in Maryland. This means that we share the common heritage that people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. In this instance, it seems that you expect the accused to prove his innocence by providing what you think you need to make that assessment.
Steph,
I commend your clairvoyance in knowing that I might be so rude as to ask you to substantiate your claims. You were correct, and remain so. I believe that wyndhy was referring to your posts as accusing Mr. Cheney of immoral behavior. I do think it appropriate to back up such accusations with persuasive data, even if you do not.
In general:
If either of you are interested in securing the information you presume exists and further presume will support your positions, you may begin your efforts by
following this link, which points you to where you may get it. This is not unusual; reviewing the tax returns of those covered by ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT ACT
has been done by others in the past.
Note please that I am not saying that Mr. Cheney is innocent of the behavior of which you accuse him. I do find it odd that the immoral behavior of which he is accused has managed to slip past those in a position to exploit it – Congress - while being so generally known that supporting evidence is unnecessary.
The first time I recall such vitriolic loathing was when I was working in Jeddah. One of my co-workers was a Brit who loved to hate the current PM, Margaret Thatcher. Once, after a particularly impressive rant, during which he accused her of precipitating the Falklands War, I asked him if he thought she liked seeming people in misery. He paused for a moment, and then said “Yes”. At least he was consistent.
The last time I recall such irrational fulminations was when President Clinton was impeached. Fortunately fewer than 67 votes could be mustered in the Senate trial.
I am persuaded that, based upon your unsubstantiated claims of immoral behavior and “guilty until proven innocent” positions, and that when these surprising positions were identified, they were claimed to be acceptable, there exists no reasoned response to your positions. As mere facts of law seem only to be inconveniences, law seems insufficient. As requests for facts are considered a hindrance to this discussion, it leaves it “fact free”.
I am unsure what contribution I might be able to make to a fact free discussion unencumbered by the inconvenience of lawful behavior.