What we've got is from 2005... the President's 1040 form.. details to come tonight 9P

[OldJourno]

The real estate deal where the Russian Oligarch paid $100M for a property Trump bought for $40 M a few years earlier was more interesting than the actual revel. More Russia-Trump keeps popping up everywhere. Using imbalanced real estate transactions is classic. Only scam better is the "loan" that never gets paid back. I am sure more will come of that.

Actually, Trumplethinskin paying the AMT almost made me feel bad for the dipshit. I fucking hate the AMT. Turns out the AMT repeal is somewhere in his tax policy. Maybe I should start voting my wallet and not my morals and values.

On a much smaller scale, I made $178,000 on a house I paid $220,000 for two years prior. About the same time frame, too.
Buyer was a speculator. LOL.

 

[OldJourno]

I'm not seeing a big deal here. Trump made a bunch of money and paid a bunch on taxes, a higher percentage than Obama in 2016, if the report is right. And a much higher percentage than Bernie Social Justice I Have Three Houses Sanders.

 

[sr71plt]

The interesting information, politically, is (A) where the money comes from and (B), during the campaign, it would have been damning information to know that the man claiming to be the world's best businessman claimed losses of $105 million that year. But what really needs to be seen are the returns for the missing last dozen years and where the money came from--and what his charitable giving really was against what he claimed and whether it went right back into his pocket in rake-off schemes.

He isn't withholding financial records that presidents for the last fifty years have given because his finances are all in order--or because they are in audit. That dog won't bark. Millions of people want to know what's in them and why he won't reveal them. He shouldn't have run for president if he wasn't going to reveal what other people running for president have done. And chumps shouldn't have voted for him if he wouldn't reveal them.

 

[Christobal]

As I read it Trump paid about 25% tax on his income. Anyone that paid more than that please speak up.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

*chuckle*


Even though the returns didn't say what everyone on the Left truly believed deep in their black little hearts, I can see that they are still doing everything they can to read between the lines...


YEAH! It was 25%, but look where the money came from!!! RUSSIA!!!!!

 

[sr71plt]

Wouldn't have to read between the lines if Trump did what presidential candidates have done for the last 50 years. Released his financials. His failure to do so is the reason folks are reading between the lines. If there wasn't something to read between the lines that he didn't want the American people to know, he'd release the tax data--like every president has done for the last 50 years.

You obviously want to run around with a bag over your head and continue to be conned and screwed by this man, but some others don't.

And, no, his basic tax rate had been giggled down to 4 percent for 2005 through exemptions, most of which was because he is a failed businessman. It was offset by the AMT, put in because people like him finagling their taxes down to almost nothing.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

His personal tax returns would not give you what you want, it only reports the numbers of what his LLCs paid him.


You are making yourself look ___________.


That's why you are still trying to read between the lines.

Have you not ever done your own taxes?

 

[sr71plt]

Have you not ever done your own taxes?

No, I've always had a business manager. Trump doesn't do his own taxes either.

 

[Rightguide]

It's everybody's business. It is the business of Us the People.

No it isn't your business. This is why the law doesn't require him to release his taxes. Oh, and now that a felony has been committed and his taxes released, revealing he paid a fortune in taxes, almost 40 million on 150 million in income, we see how absolutely full of shit the Democrats are, what despicable liars they are.

 

[KingOrfeo]

You think Trump "released" it?

That's already a theory.

While these observations certainly provide insights into how the super-rich like Trump avoid paying their fair share in taxes, they were hardly original insights and did not shed any light on the potential conflicts of interest that observers (Maddow included) have speculated could explain why the president refuses to disclose them. This has caused many to criticize Maddow’s scoop as much ado about nothing, from Willa Paskin of Slate describing it as “a cautionary tale about over-hype” and Derek Hawkins of The Washington Post speculating that “Trump seemed to make it through the segment in pretty good shape — so good that a cyberspace chorus wondered for hours after the fact: Did Trump leak his own tax return?”

That latter theory was shared by David Cay Johnston, the Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter who provided Maddow with the documents. “It’s entirely possible that Donald sent this to me. It’s a possibility, and it could have been leaked by someone in his direction,” Johnston stated. The fact that the 1040 was labeled “Client Copy” has been cited as lending credence to this hypothesis.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

The interesting information, politically, is (A) where the money comes from and (B), during the campaign, it would have been damning information to know that the man claiming to be the world's best businessman claimed losses of $105 million that year. But what really needs to be seen are the returns for the missing last dozen years and where the money came from--and what his charitable giving really was against what he claimed and whether it went right back into his pocket in rake-off schemes.

He isn't withholding financial records that presidents for the last fifty years have given because his finances are all in order--or because they are in audit. That dog won't bark. Millions of people want to know what's in them and why he won't reveal them. He shouldn't have run for president if he wasn't going to reveal what other people running for president have done. And chumps shouldn't have voted for him if he wouldn't reveal them.

It would have been damning to know that when you own billions of dollars of assets/real estate that it depreciates by millions every year?

http://gif-finder.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Bill-Murray-Ok.gif

 

[rocket_surgery]

I saw today that other news outlets were turning on Maddow because the whole thing turned out to be much ado about nothing and too many questions on how the pages were obtained.
Even Democrats in Congress were saying to ignore it.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Seriously, you should open a "bullshit store" and franchise it nationally:

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.

Like I said, if they obtained the return legally they can publish it.

 

[sr71plt]

It would have been damning to know that when you own billions of dollars of assets/real estate that it depreciates by millions every year?

So, you have chosen to ignore that he's gone bankrupt six times, hasn't been able to pay his vendors countless times (the charitable way of putting that), and couldn't make a casino profitable--because it's convenient for you to pick and chose the "facts" for your arguments? Because you prefer to continue to be Trump's dope/dupe?

 

[someoneyouknow]

Depends on circumstances. If you acquired it legally, there's no reason why you can't publish it.

I don't know if anyone else has posted this (I'm too lazy to look), but this lays out the situation regarding Trump's tax return and Maddow publishing them:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/15/us/politics/trump-tax-returns-legal-precedent.html?ref=politics&_r=0

In short, even if the document was acquired illegally, Maddow has the First Amendment protection to publish it because, “A stranger’s illegal conduct does not suffice to remove the First Amendment shield from speech about a matter of public concern."

 

[HisArpy]

Like I said, if they obtained the return legally they can publish it.

As was pointed out, the ONLY WAY they could have obtained it "legally" was if Trump himself gave it to them.

Are you saying that's the case? Where's your evidence? Not conjecture, not clickbait, not anything except FACTS.

The ONLY fact that will work is proof that Trump gave out the information himself or personally authorized someone to have it.

So, do you actually have FACTS? Or are you going to post another nonsense one-liner designed to show how superior your intellect is (when it really isn't)?

 

[HisArpy]

So, you have chosen to ignore that he's gone bankrupt six times, hasn't been able to pay his vendors countless times (the charitable way of putting that), and couldn't make a casino profitable--because it's convenient for you to pick and chose the "facts" for your arguments? Because you prefer to continue to be Trump's dope/dupe?

TRUMP hasn't declared bankruptcy.

You're parroting the party line by saying he has. It's false.

 

[sr71plt]

TRUMP hasn't declared bankruptcy.

You're parroting the party line by saying he has. It's false.

And you're Trump's dope/dupe for falling for his use of cutout company titles to fool the fools about who has gone bankrupt (in order to stick it to his vendors and line his own pockets).

I guess dumb is forever.

 

[HisArpy]

I don't know if anyone else has posted this (I'm too lazy to look), but this lays out the situation regarding Trump's tax return and Maddow publishing them:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/15/us/politics/trump-tax-returns-legal-precedent.html?ref=politics&_r=0

In short, even if the document was acquired illegally, Maddow has the First Amendment protection to publish it because, “A stranger’s illegal conduct does not suffice to remove the First Amendment shield from speech about a matter of public concern."

The article in the link is interesting. However, one must read it with the understanding that the NY Times is publishing the opinion and is not a disinterested party to the end result.

That said, the writer states that the law prohibits the publication of the tax return information so Maddow's publication of it is illegal. He then goes on to categorically state that the law is most likely unconstitutional. He has no citation or legal authority to make that statement, so it is HIS PERSONAL opinion made to support his position. Nothing more. Which is where the skepticism comes in...NYTimes, opinion piece, unconstitutional law, hmmmm.

I did like how he stated that the US Sup Ct has said that new media can publish things if they are public interest or newsworthy. However, again, the goes on to state, without any sort of support for the position, that Trump is a public figure and newsworthy and therefore Maddow didn't do anything illegal. Interesting how he fails to mention that in 2005 Trump wasn't a public figure, there is nothing illegal in the tax return information, and what Trump did as a private citizen is not newsworthy.

Maddow broke the law. There is no cover for her despite what some people would like to believe. I hope she goes to prison for it.

 

[HisArpy]

And you're Trump's dope/dupe for falling for his use of cutout company titles to fool the fools about who has gone bankrupt (in order to stick it to his vendors and line his own pockets).

I guess dumb is forever.

Again, I state TRUMP did not declare bankruptcy. His corporations may have, but HE did not.

Failure to understand that simple principle is why you post drivel on a porn site and Trump lives in the White House and is worth a ton more in liquid and hard assets than you ever will.

 

[rocket_surgery]

And you're Trump's dope/dupe for falling for his use of cutout company titles to fool the fools about who has gone bankrupt (in order to stick it to his vendors and line his own pockets).

I guess dumb is forever.

What you just described isn't a poor businessman, it's an unscrupulous one. It doesn't show that he isn't good at it. To the contrary it kind of shows that he's really good at it, just happens to also be an asshole.

 

[sr71plt]

What you just described isn't a poor businessman, it's an unscrupulous one. It doesn't show that he isn't good at it. To the contrary it kind of shows that he's really good at it, just happens to also be an asshole.

From my perspective--looking at the purpose of business as contributing to and progressing all working in the company and society as a whole and not just lining the CEO's pockets--he's a poor businessman, as well. Certainly poor in spirit.

 

[sr71plt]

Again, I state TRUMP did not declare bankruptcy. His corporations may have, but HE did not.

And, once again, you can choose to fool yourself on who is standing behind the curtain of the Trump corporations and siphoning off the profits, but I'm not planning to be conned by the man enough to go there with you. You'll have to be a Trump dupe/dope on your own on that one.

 

[someoneyouknow]

The article in the link is interesting. However, one must read it with the understanding that the NY Times is publishing the opinion and is not a disinterested party to the end result.

That said, the writer states that the law prohibits the publication of the tax return information so Maddow's publication of it is illegal. He then goes on to categorically state that the law is most likely unconstitutional. He has no citation or legal authority to make that statement, so it is HIS PERSONAL opinion made to support his position. Nothing more. Which is where the skepticism comes in...NYTimes, opinion piece, unconstitutional law, hmmmm.

I did like how he stated that the US Sup Ct has said that new media can publish things if they are public interest or newsworthy. However, again, the goes on to state, without any sort of support for the position, that Trump is a public figure and newsworthy and therefore Maddow didn't do anything illegal. Interesting how he fails to mention that in 2005 Trump wasn't a public figure, there is nothing illegal in the tax return information, and what Trump did as a private citizen is not newsworthy.

Maddow broke the law. There is no cover for her despite what some people would like to believe. I hope she goes to prison for it.

Trump is now a public figure. Anything he did in the past is fair game.

Maddow will not go to jail because, as stated, the con artist's tax returns are in the public interest. People have a right to know if the president, any president, is following the laws they are supposed to uphold and not being influenced by outside entities.

That said, I'm sure had Hillary not released her taxes and become president you'd be chuckling with glee this had been done to her.

 

[KingOrfeo]

As was pointed out, the ONLY WAY they could have obtained it "legally" was if Trump himself gave it to them.

Are you saying that's the case? Where's your evidence?

I'm not obliged to provide any; the burden is entirely on anyone trying to make a case for criminal activity here. And the disclosure would also have been legal, or at any rate no violation of 26 U.S. Code § 7213, if someone in Trump's office disclosed it without his permission.