RobDownSouth
No Kings
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 77,758
What we've got is from 2005... the President's 1040 form.. details to come tonight 9P
- Thread starter BoyNextDoor
- Start date
So how did Maddow make anyone howl?
I missed the breathless coverage, which seemed to prove that Trump made a shitload of money and paid at shitload of taxes, more taxes by percentage than Obama and Sanders.
Was there more to this?
Colonel Hogan
Madness
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2005
- Posts
- 18,372
Like I said, if they obtained the return legally they can publish it.26 U.S. Code § 7213 - Unauthorized disclosure of information
(a) Returns and return information
(1) Federal employees and other persons
It shall be unlawful for any officer or employee of the United States or any person described in section 6103(or an officer or employee of any such person), or any former officer or employee, willfully to disclose to any person, except as authorized in this title, any return or return information (as defined in section 6103(b)). Any violation of this paragraph shall be a felony punishable upon conviction by a fine in any amount not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution, and if such offense is committed by any officer or employee of the United States, he shall, in addition to any other punishment, be dismissed from office or discharged from employment upon conviction for such offense.
(2) State and other employees
It shall be unlawful for any person (not described in paragraph (1)) willfully to disclose to any person, except as authorized in this title, any return or return information (as defined in section 6103(b)) acquired by him or another person under subsection (d), (i)(1)(C), (3)(B)(i), or (7)(A)(ii), (k)(10), (l)(6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (12), (15), (16), (19), (20), or (21) or (m)(2), (4), (5), (6), or (7) of section 6103 or under section 6104(c). Any violation of this paragraph shall be a felony punishable by a fine in any amount not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.
(3) Other persons
It shall be unlawful for any person to whom any return or return information (as defined in section 6103(b)) is disclosed in a manner unauthorized by this title thereafter willfully to print or publish in any manner not provided by law any such return or return information. Any violation of this paragraph shall be a felony punishable by a fine in any amount not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.
How in the FUCK did you ever pass the bar if you can't even accurately read and comprehend the English language? By what fathomable extrapolation of reason was the "DISCLOSURE" of Trump's tax return to either David Johnston or Rachel Maddow specifically done in a manner "AUTHORIZED IN [or "by"] THIS TITLE" (26 U.S. Code)?????
Precisely WHERE in TITLE 26 does it say or even remotely imply that a "obtaining a tax return legally" is the sole determinant of whether a person can subsequently "publish it"?
NO, DUMBASS, YOU AND ANYONE DEFENDING THE LEGALITY OF JOHNSTON AND MADDOW'S ACTIONS ARE SO OBLIGED!!!
The words "...in a manner UNAUTHORIZED BY THIS TITLE" means that the only authority governing legal disclosure of a private tax return and the information it contains is FOUND SPECIFICALLY WITHIN TITLE 26 of the United States Code. If you cannot cite the specific language within the TITLE that AUTHORIZES THE MANNER OF DISCLOSURE followed by Johnston and Maddow, then THEIR DISCLOSURE IS INDISPUTABLY UN-FUCKING-AUTHORIZED!!!!
26 U.S. Code § 7213(a)(3) is a strict liability statute. "Oh, I'm sorry. I keep forgetting. You were sick the day they taught law at law school." The statue does not have a mens rea element comprising criminality apart from "willfully" to print or publish. That qualifier clearly DOES NOT apply to the relevant statutory language authorizing disclosure. Any disclosure NOT thusly authorized is UNauthorized and constitutes a criminal felony. Period. End. Of. Story.
Again, at the risk of belaboring the point that you cannot even read and understand the very law you're citing, your assertion is true ONLY IF that person "DISCLOSE[d].... EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED IN THIS TITLE,..." (See 26 U.S. Code § 7213(a)(1) which YOU cited in YOUR first paragraph above).
Cite the language of TITLE 26 USC that PROVIDES that specific A-U-T-H-O-R-I-Z-A-T-I-O-N.
Fucking nitwit.
Last edited:
Colonel Hogan
Madness
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2005
- Posts
- 18,372
And YOU are so far in over your head there is about six feet of sand between it and where the bow of the Titanic lies buried.
“A stranger’s illegal conduct does not suffice to remove the First Amendment shield from speech about a matter of public concern" is merely the concluding summarizing quote from Justice Steven's majority opinion in Bartinicki v. Vopper (2001), and to use it out of context with the various compelling facts of THAT CASE and as an IMPLIED PRECEDENT for absolution of every media broadcast or publication of lawfully classified or protected personal information under a right of privacy inescapably brands you as an ignorant hick.
The ONLY illegal act in that case was the manner in which the information was obtained -- the unlawful recording of a phone call. In addition to the public interest in the CONTENT of the call, a compelling LEGAL factor in the Court's decision was that there was nothing ABOUT THAT CONTENT that was protected or restricted by the statute which defined the unlawful recording. That statutory language, said the Court, was "content neutral." In light of THAT most important issue, the Court then delivered the real meat of the matter:
In other words, NOTHING in Bartinicki has one damn thing to do with a "First Amendment shield" SUPERSEDING the lawful government classification of national security information or information statutorily protected under a recognized right of personal privacy REGARDLESS OF its alleged "public concern." The Court "repeatedly refuses" to "answer that question categorically."
Had you actually bothered to READ that SCOTUS opinion, you MIGHT have actually understood that. I doubt it, but you might have.
But, shit, that still puts you miles ahead of KO!! And he actually claims to be a lawyer.
Last edited:
sr71plt
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2006
- Posts
- 51,872
Nobody's holding their breath on the ruling of the Literotica porn discussion board on this. We'll see if it's ruled legal or not by those with the power and authority to make a ruling. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. MSNBC has lawyers who apparently cleared it for publication. Now I know they don't have the authority of pontificating on a porn discussion board and using screamy fonts and colors when they try to shout everyone else down, but . . .
Colonel Hogan
Madness
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2005
- Posts
- 18,372
Hey, pull your head out. If you actually believe MSNBC lawyers "cleared it" for publication based on existing legal precedent than you are a lot dumber than I gave you credit for, and, for the record, I don't think you are dumb.
They "cleared it" because there is little likelihood that Trump is going to unleash the DOJ over the nonetheless clearly illegal release and publication of a mere two pages of a 2005 1040 Form. There probably isn't going to be the definitive ruling you and I would both love. You don't typically shoot flies with an elephant gun.
I just stomp around and do it because it pisses me the fuck off when flies pretend like they actually have knowledge of the law when they don't even give it the most cursory research or analysis. Especially when they claim to be licensed to PRACTICE law.
EllieTalbot
Fear the Spoon
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2003
- Posts
- 3,921
I do believe you're in danger of getting a citation, sir. There's only so much ass you're allowed to kick per thread.
I'd quote the relevant regulations, but they only exist in my head and are extremely subject to interpretation.
Rejecting Rachel in Russia,
Ellie
Colonel Hogan
Madness
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2005
- Posts
- 18,372
Guilty as charged, ma'am. But, hey, I value your opinion.
Would you defend me if you were a lawyer?
EllieTalbot
Fear the Spoon
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2003
- Posts
- 3,921
Guilty as charged, ma'am. But, hey, I value your opinion.
Would you defend me if you were a lawyer?
Of course!
Right up until the inevitable moment that you fire me for incompetence.Unqualified in Uzbekistan,
Ellie
