Trump's Taxes

[Grumps 3,704]

3 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

This is ridiculous.  Without leaking information, we don't find out about Watergate.  There's nothing inherently wrong about the press getting information that we the American people have the right to know from leaks or unnamed sources.  

As long as the tax returns, if legit (and I doubt the NYT would just make it up), were not obtained illegally, then sure, print them. But how did someone get them legally? You cannot be in favor of publishing info obtained illegally can you? That would be worse than giving phony info to get a FISA warrant to you could surveil an enemy political campaign.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

5 minutes ago, Grumps said:

Are you saying that you think it is ok for the NYT to publish a person's tax returns if they were obtained illegally? That is my problem with this situation.

You should learn about the laws with regards to the press receiving information.  The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that if it's in the public interest, then the information can be published as long as the media didn't obtain it illegally.  Simply receiving the documents doesn't put the publisher in the wrong.  If the NYT so chose, they could legally publish the returns without fear of punishment.

Again, Pentagon Papers case.  Read it and learn it.

[TitanTiger 20,508]

1 minute ago, Grumps said:

As long as the tax returns, if legit (and I doubt the NYT would just make it up), were not obtained illegally, then sure, print them. But how did someone get them legally? You cannot be in favor of publishing info obtained illegally can you? That would be worse than giving phony info to get a FISA warrant to you could surveil an enemy political campaign.

I think that public officials have a responsibility to be transparent, especially with regard to financial matters. Trump could have avoided this by doing what basically every candidate since Watergate has done. I’m not shedding any tears. 

[TitanTiger 20,508]

I’ve removed the back and forth that got too heated for this forum. Let’s all move on. 

[homersapien 11,421]

44 minutes ago, Grumps said:

Are you saying that you think it is ok for the NYT to publish a person's tax returns if they were obtained illegally? That is my problem with this situation.

Are you proposing they should be prevented - or sanctioned -  for how they got it?

If so, you clearly don't understand the nature and value of a "free press".

[IronMan70 3,277]

4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Are you proposing they should be prevented - or sanctioned -  for how they got it?

If so, you clearly don't understand the nature and value of a "free press".

Do you feel the same way about Julian Assange when he published the Clinton emails in Wikileaks ?

[IronMan70 3,277]

First, just a quick comment on a couple statements made in the thread. Americans do not have the legal "right" to see another American's tax returns or health records

As far as Trump's taxes, the NYT uses anonymous sources of course and provides no documentation so there is no way of knowing if this is or is not factual. But if you read the Times own story it will tell you that, according to them, Trump paid in $1 million in 2016 and $4.2 million in 2017. The $750 was in addition to those totals already paid in and was part of his 1040 extension. Of course the author either doesn't understand that or is intentionally trying to leave the impression that nothing else happened.

After the extension, the accountants go to work on the tax return. Trump is in real estate so they take advantage of several depreciation schedules, loss carry forwards, business investment credits and historic preservation tax credits. Even after those credits, Trumps accountants don't ask for refunds. These are all legal deductions and the same pols playing politics with it now, wrote the provisions into the tax laws in the first place.  

From the NYT article:

 

 

[AUFAN78 3,926]

12 hours ago, IronMan70 said:

First, just a quick comment on a couple statements in the thread. Americans do not have the "right" to see another American's tax returns or health records

As far as Trump's taxes, the NYT uses anonymous sources of course and provides no documentation so there is no way of knowing if this is or is not factual. But if you read the Times own story it will tell you that, according to them, Trump paid in $1 million in 2016 and $4.2 million in 2017. The $750 was in addition to those totals already paid in and was part of his 1040 extension. Of course the author either doesn't understand that or is intentionally trying to leave the impression that nothing else happened.

After the extension, the accountants get to work on the tax return. Trump is in real estate so they take advantage of depreciation, loss carry forwards, business investment credits and historic preservation tax credits. Even after those credits, Trumps accountants don't ask for refunds. These are all legal deductions and the same pols playing politics with it now, wrote the provisions into the tax laws in the first place.  

From the NYT article:

 

 

Out of likes, but you nailed it! Thanks!

[AUFAN78 3,926]

Great read. Enjoy.

Because most media will breeze over it, it’s important to pause and note the criminal illegality of this story. It is a federal crime for any federal, state, or local government employee to release a tax return without the consent of the taxpayer. Ditto for tax lawyers, CPAs, enrolled agents, and other tax professionals. Interestingly, it’s also illegal to print or publish tax returns or information from them. Section 7213 of the Internal Revenue Code prescribes that each violation here is a felony punishable by $5,000 and/or five years in federal prison, plus the cost of prosecution. Federal employees so convicted are to lose their jobs.

https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/28/new-york-times-trump-tax-return-bombshell-is-a-joke/

[SocialCircle 570]

19 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

What a horse **** take.  If information is legit and is a public concern, then leaking NEEDS to happen.  Example: Was the person that leaked the Pentagon Papers an enemy of the people or a hero?

Leaking anything illegally is wrong and it makes the leaker a criminal. After all who gets to decide what is appropriate to leak if not the law? 

[AUFAN78 3,926]

39 minutes ago, SocialCircle said:

Leaking anything illegally is wrong and it makes the leaker a criminal. After all who gets to decide what is appropriate to leak if not the law? 

Out of likes, but yes! We actually have people on this thread accepting and approving criminality. It's mind boggling.

[Grumps 3,704]

15 hours ago, homersapien said:

Are you proposing they should be prevented - or sanctioned -  for how they got it?

If so, you clearly don't understand the nature and value of a "free press".

I am saying that if they published information that they know was obtained illegally then they may have some legal problems. If they paid for the information that they know was obtained illegally then they may have even worse legal problems. If they paid to have the information obtained illegally then they will never recover from the legal implications.

Are you saying that freedom of this press means that they can publish information that they know was obtained illegally or information that they know is false?

[TitanTiger 20,508]

7 minutes ago, Grumps said:

Are you saying that freedom of this press means that they can publish information that they know was obtained illegally or information that they know is false?

Yes.  They can publish information that was obtained illegally.  They may not publish information they know to be false.

Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514, 535 (2001), held that even if the information was illegally obtained by a third party in the first instance, those who have lawfully received the information from that source have a right, under the First Amendment, to publish information gleaned from those documents that relate to matters of public concern.  “We think it clear that parallel reasoning requires the conclusion that a stranger’s illegal conduct does not suffice to remove the First Amendment shield from speech about a matter of public concern.”

In Bartnicki, a third party illegally taped phone conversations between two individuals who were discussing contentious union matters, and then passed those tapes along to the defendant radio broadcaster, who played the tapes on-air and was subsequently sued for violations of the state’s wiretap laws.  Id. at 518-19.

The Supreme Court determined that the radio broadcaster was not in violation of state law since he, himself, had lawfully obtained the information from the third party (and despite the fact the third party had unlawfully obtained the information).  Id.at 528-30.

[homersapien 11,421]

37 minutes ago, Grumps said:

I am saying that if they published information that they know was obtained illegally then they may have some legal problems. If they paid for the information that they know was obtained illegally then they may have even worse legal problems. If they paid to have the information obtained illegally then they will never recover from the legal implications.

Are you saying that freedom of this press means that they can publish information that they know was obtained illegally Yes, it's happened many times https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/05/why-the-press-can-publish-any-classified-material-it-likes/371488/

or information that they know is false?  Reputable news publishers don't publish information they know is false, which is why they are still in business. 

 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

5 hours ago, SocialCircle said:

Leaking anything illegally is wrong and it makes the leaker a criminal. After all who gets to decide what is appropriate to leak if not the law? 

Again I ask, was Daniel Ellsberg a criminal or an American hero in your view?  Was what he did wrong?

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

3 hours ago, Grumps said:

I am saying that if they published information that they know was obtained illegally then they may have some legal problems. If they paid for the information that they know was obtained illegally then they may have even worse legal problems. If they paid to have the information obtained illegally then they will never recover from the legal implications.

Are you saying that freedom of this press means that they can publish information that they know was obtained illegally or information that they know is false?

The bolded is 1,000% incorrect in accordance with first amendment rulings.  As long as the press didn't orchestrate the leak or obtain information illegally, it's all fair game as long there's a legitimate public interest to the information.

In this case, it appears the info was given to the NYT.  It's similar to how the Pentagon Papers case went down.  If the information just shows up at your doorstep, you have no criminal liability as a publisher.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

17 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

The bolded is 1,000% incorrect in accordance with first amendment rulings.  As long as the press didn't orchestrate the leak or obtain information illegally, it's all fair game as long there's a legitimate public interest to the information.

In this case, it appears the info was given to the NYT.  It's similar to how the Pentagon Papers case went down.  If the information just shows up at your doorstep, you have no criminal liability as a publisher.

Basically, when your guy says don't worry how I got your stuff....you don't ask. lmao

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

29 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Basically, when your guy says don't worry how I got your stuff....you don't ask. lmao

From a media perspective, as long as the source is legit and the media can actually lay eyes on the material, pretty much.

[DKW 86 7,438]

It seems odd that:

When Obama was in power, the DNC hated whistleblowers like Snowden.
The DNC hated Wikileaks for outing the DNC Emails. 
The actively went after members of the press over leaks.
The Obama Administration was actually received an award for openness...THAT CEREMONY CLOSED THE CAPITAL BUILDING WHILE WE WERE IN DC. Award Openness...in a closed door ceremony??? WTF?

The RNC, they hate that Trump's taxes were dumped by the NYT. Well, as politely as i can say it, Sucks to be you. If you are running for office, you are interviewing for the job. Outside of your minor children, anything is fair game. 

You know,  I like whistleblowers of all stripes. If any citizen is concerned enough to risk his job or life to tell the truth, I am with him no matter his leanings, nor whom it hurts. 

Snowden should be pardoned. Manning should be pardoned. Assange, should be given a ticker tape parade. Deep Throat did us all a favor. If you cant see that, it is because all these people laid it on the line for a better world. And i am never gonna shy away from that at any time, no matter where it comes from. nor whom it hurts.

[SocialCircle 570]

2 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

Again I ask, was Daniel Ellsberg a criminal or an American hero in your view?  Was what he did wrong?

My feelings or your feelings shouldn’t count here . The law should determine whether what he did was criminal or not. 

[Grumps 3,704]

2 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

The bolded is 1,000% incorrect in accordance with first amendment rulings.  As long as the press didn't orchestrate the leak or obtain information illegally, it's all fair game as long there's a legitimate public interest to the information.

In this case, it appears the info was given to the NYT.  It's similar to how the Pentagon Papers case went down.  If the information just shows up at your doorstep, you have no criminal liability as a publisher.

Thank you for your input!

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

36 minutes ago, SocialCircle said:

My feelings or your feelings shouldn’t count here . The law should determine whether what he did was criminal or not. 

But if doing something illegal makes us a more informed public, as Ellsberg did, then those feelings do matter.

It's also important to draw a distinction between whoever leaked this and the publisher.  The NYT is well within the bounds of the law here.  The only question would be on the person who provided the info, which is info the NYT will not give up.

Going back to your law determine criminality or not, I also say to you that sometimes people do things outside of the bounds of the law that are right and proper.  How many times were civil rights leaders arrested for breaking laws in the 50s and 60s?  Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers is another example that I keep coming back to because of its similarities with this particular instance.

In this instance, whoever leaked this information may well be seen historically as a hero.  We're likely too close to the moment now to fully grasp this, but it's entirely plausible.

[SocialCircle 570]

29 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

But if doing something illegal makes us a more informed public, as Ellsberg did, then those feelings do matter.

It's also important to draw a distinction between whoever leaked this and the publisher.  The NYT is well within the bounds of the law here.  The only question would be on the person who provided the info, which is info the NYT will not give up.

Going back to your law determine criminality or not, I also say to you that sometimes people do things outside of the bounds of the law that are right and proper.  How many times were civil rights leaders arrested for breaking laws in the 50s and 60s?  Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers is another example that I keep coming back to because of its similarities with this particular instance.

In this instance, whoever leaked this information may well be seen historically as a hero.  We're likely too close to the moment now to fully grasp this, but it's entirely plausible.

I’m not arguing about the publisher. The problem with your argument is who decides what is a good leak vs what is a bad leak? 

[auskip07 930]

Amazing all these people are upset he didnt pay more taxes than he was required to pay.     Who gives the IRS more money than they owe?      Im more concerned that biden funnels foreign money to his family through his son.   Thats corruption. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 hour ago, SocialCircle said:

I’m not arguing about the publisher. The problem with your argument is who decides what is a good leak vs what is a bad leak? 

History and the American people decides that.  It's why I said most of the time, we're too close to the moment to realize it.