Trumps tax returns!

[soxfan]

Rachel Maddow MSNBC at 9:05 pm......

 

[Matata]

She better have the real thing. If this is a tease, I'm gonna need a lot of chocolate to compensate.

 

[Efe]

Read that she has his 2005 return.

 

[soxfan]

Read that she has his 2005 return.

I know. I just read that! Grr.... better have something GOOD!

 

[lovedogs]

Read that she has his 2005 return.

I know. I just read that! Grr.... better have something GOOD!

very irritated that they are from '05. ugh, I want recent ones!

 

[ruby59]

Read that she has his 2005 return.

I know. I just read that! Grr.... better have something GOOD!

very irritated that they are from '05. ugh, I want recent ones!

Sorry, Rachael but it is already all over the net. Trump got a jump on you.

But you keep playing the Twilight Zone in your head.

 

[ruby59]

The mystery of A Capone's Vault yielded more.

Good try, drama queen.

 

[soxfan]

The mystery of A Capone's Vault yielded more.

Good try, drama queen.

It's Al Capone. And your bizarre defense of Trump is unnerving.

 

[ruby59]

The mystery of A Capone's Vault yielded more.

Good try, drama queen.

It's Al Capone. And your bizarre defense of Trump is unnerving.

I used his first initial. So yes A Capone.

Defending what. Everything she said was prefaced by "What if" It was all speculation on her part. Certainly not hard fact news.

Listening to her hyperventilate is what was unnerving. Could not stand it for more than 15 minutes.

 

[soxfan]

The mystery of A Capone's Vault yielded more.

Good try, drama queen.

It's Al Capone. And your bizarre defense of Trump is unnerving.

I used his first initial. So yes A Capone.

Defending what. Everything she said was prefaced by "What if" It was all speculation on her part. Certainly not hard fact news.

Listening to her hyperventilate is what was unnerving. Could not stand it for more than 15 minutes.

She was hyperventilating?

 

[AGBF]

"The New York Times" finds the release of the tax returns to be newsworthy, if for no other reason than for the huge tax write off which Trump took. They are publishing Rachel Maddow's scoop on their front page.

Link...https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/14/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

AGBF

 

[ruby59]

"The New York Times" finds the release of the tax returns to be newsworthy, if for no other reason than for the huge tax write off which Trump took. They are publishing Rachel Maddow's scoop on their front page.

Link...https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/14/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

AGBF

Google it. It was all over the net before Rachael Maddow's show.

Second - what scoop. He paid 25% in taxes.

Obama paid 19%

Bernie Sanders 13%

What am I missing. Trump already said he took advantage of tax laws during the campaign. So no surprise there.

Also, isn't it against the law for someone else to release it?

 

[Maria D]

Chump paid $38 million in taxes that year? Well I'll be darned. The cynic in me thinks the White House leaked the 2005 return themselves. It's probably his best one.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Google it. It was all over the net before Rachael Maddow's show.

Second - what scoop. He paid 25% in taxes.

Obama paid 19%

Bernie Sanders 13%

What am I missing. Trump already said he took advantage of tax laws during the campaign. So no surprise there.

Also, isn't it against the law for someone else to release it?

This..http://www.investors.com/politics/andrew-malcolm/obama-white-house-staff-back-taxes/

 

[House Cat]

Chump paid $38 million in taxes that year? Well I'll be darned. The cynic in me thinks the White House leaked the 2005 return themselves. It's probably his best one.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[siamese3]

Chump paid $38 million in taxes that year? Well I'll be darned. The cynic in me thinks the White House leaked the 2005 return themselves. It's probably his best one.

Agree, gets attention off of Russia, healthcare, microwaves, providing Obama wiretapping evidence (oh yeah, remember that evidence he had that all those women were lying..what happened to that press release... and all that secret info he had about the Russian hacking that he was privy to let he was going to "reveal" to the American public.. never happened..congress won't let him off the hook with the wire tapping allegations)

Seems suspect it's just two pages that were released, which really tell us very little (no details) and it proves he did pay taxes and he can paint the media as "the enemy" again.

 

[Arcadian]

So...I'm going to go against the grain here.

I don't agree with how these were "released". If they were released by Trump himself, thats another matter. But tax returns are personal and private. Even as president, he does not by law have to release tax returns. Makes him an ass and suspect as hell, not much more than that. Any other citizen that had their privacy invaded and folks would be up in arms. He is still, though president, allowed his privacy in these matters.


That said, its from 2005 so I'm not impressed. Whomever released these knew what they were doing. They are non-consequential nor do they have any bearing on what deals he may have made in the last 2-3 years. Basically a bone was thrown to take folks off the real news.

 

[partgypsy]

So...I'm going to go against the grain here.

I don't agree with how these were "released". If they were released by Trump himself, thats another matter. But tax returns are personal and private. Even as president, he does not by law have to release tax returns. Makes him an a$$ and suspect as hell, not much more than that. Any other citizen that had their privacy invaded and folks would be up in arms. He is still, though president, allowed his privacy in these matters.


That said, its from 2005 so I'm not impressed. Whomever released these knew what they were doing. They are non-consequential nor do they have any bearing on what deals he may have made in the last 2-3 years. Basically a bone was thrown to take folks off the real news.

Agree. 2 pages of 2005 tax returns doesn't say much at all. What people would like to see is the last 5 years of full tax returns. As we have a partisan house and senate, and the Republicans don't seem to feel there should be any investigation in whether Trump has conflicts of interest, doubt we will learn anything more. The president is supposed to be an example for all of us. All presidents in recent times took conflicts of interests seriously and submitted to putting their investments in a blind trust. For goodness sakes Carter sold his family farm! Trump promised to drain the swamp but he won't even make himself free of conflicts of interests. Say one thing, do another.
Office of Government ethics:
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2017/01/11/oge-director-warns-trumps-plan-insufficient/

 

[Arcadian]

not only that part gypsy, but the EO's that are being signed, among other things. Its like "Here kids, take this shiny balloon while I do what I really need to do while you're preoccupied." Thats whats really going on.

 

[bunnycat]

not only that part gypsy, but the EO's that are being signed, among other things. Its like "Here kids, take this shiny balloon while I do what I really need to do while you're preoccupied." Thats whats really going on.

That is how it has been since day one. The goal is to keep everyone confused, and everyone at each others throats with as much confusion as possible. I really wasn't kidding when I said that we are basically all (unwilling) participants in a reality TV show at this point.

 

[asscherisme]

Chump paid $38 million in taxes that year? Well I'll be darned. The cynic in me thinks the White House leaked the 2005 return themselves. It's probably his best one.

I totally think he leaked it himself.

 

[ruby59]

So...I'm going to go against the grain here.

I don't agree with how these were "released". If they were released by Trump himself, thats another matter. But tax returns are personal and private. Even as president, he does not by law have to release tax returns. Makes him an a$$ and suspect as hell, not much more than that. Any other citizen that had their privacy invaded and folks would be up in arms. He is still, though president, allowed his privacy in these matters.


That said, its from 2005 so I'm not impressed. Whomever released these knew what they were doing. They are non-consequential nor do they have any bearing on what deals he may have made in the last 2-3 years. Basically a bone was thrown to take folks off the real news.

Actually, I would not be surprised if Trump released them. If so, it was a very brilliant play.

But who released them is not the point.

Maddow made an absolute fool of herself last night trying to read some tin foil hat conspiracy into it before she had any hard facts to back them up. That is irresponsible journalism.

Just because the bone was thrown, it does not mean you have to pick it up and go nuts over it, like Rachael Maddow did.

 

[siamese3]

So...I'm going to go against the grain here.

I don't agree with how these were "released". If they were released by Trump himself, thats another matter. But tax returns are personal and private. Even as president, he does not by law have to release tax returns. Makes him an a$$ and suspect as hell, not much more than that. Any other citizen that had their privacy invaded and folks would be up in arms. He is still, though president, allowed his privacy in these matters.


That said, its from 2005 so I'm not impressed. Whomever released these knew what they were doing. They are non-consequential nor do they have any bearing on what deals he may have made in the last 2-3 years. Basically a bone was thrown to take folks off the real news.

Actually, I would not be surprised if Trump released them. If so, it was a very brilliant play.

But who released them is not the point.

Maddow made an absolute fool of herself last night trying to read some tin foil hat conspiracy into it before she had any hard facts to back them up. That is irresponsible journalism.

Just because the bone was thrown, it does not mean you have to pick it up and go nuts over it, like Rachael Maddow did.

IMHO, she was just highlighting all of the reasons it is important to the American public to see what DJT's tax returns tell us about his finances. I could have done without some of the "hype" leading up to the show, however, I don't think she made an "absolute fool" of herself. Someone needs to keep asking these questions. He obviously has things to hide or he would have released his returns, as he promised NUMEROUS times to do. Yes, I know, HRC lied to the FBI, Obama has all sorts of "tin foil hat" conspiracies going on, ACA is in a death spiral.....

 

[ruby59]

So...I'm going to go against the grain here.

I don't agree with how these were "released". If they were released by Trump himself, thats another matter. But tax returns are personal and private. Even as president, he does not by law have to release tax returns. Makes him an a$$ and suspect as hell, not much more than that. Any other citizen that had their privacy invaded and folks would be up in arms. He is still, though president, allowed his privacy in these matters.


That said, its from 2005 so I'm not impressed. Whomever released these knew what they were doing. They are non-consequential nor do they have any bearing on what deals he may have made in the last 2-3 years. Basically a bone was thrown to take folks off the real news.

Actually, I would not be surprised if Trump released them. If so, it was a very brilliant play.

But who released them is not the point.

Maddow made an absolute fool of herself last night trying to read some tin foil hat conspiracy into it before she had any hard facts to back them up. That is irresponsible journalism.

Just because the bone was thrown, it does not mean you have to pick it up and go nuts over it, like Rachael Maddow did.

IMHO, she was just highlighting all of the reasons it is important to the American public to see what DJT's tax returns tell us about his finances. I could have done without some of the "hype" leading up to the show, however, I don't think she made an "absolute fool" of herself. Someone needs to keep asking these questions. He obviously has things to hide or he would have released his returns, as he promised NUMEROUS times to do. Yes, I know, HRC lied to the FBI, Obama has all sorts of "tin foil hat" conspiracies going on, ACA is in a death spiral.....

I was right with you on the highlighted part. Yes an investigation needs to be made. And yes it needs to be reported by a responsible journalist.

I watch MSNBC during the day and the men and women who fill those hours are enjoyable and informative. I try to watch all 3 channels to get a more balanced view.

But MSNBC, unless it wants to lose all credibility, needs to make Maddow take a leave of absence. Ever since she was crying on live TV when Trump won, and the way she has acted ever since, she comes across very unglued, imo.

 

[sstephensid]

So...I'm going to go against the grain here.

I don't agree with how these were "released". If they were released by Trump himself, thats another matter. But tax returns are personal and private. Even as president, he does not by law have to release tax returns. Makes him an a$$ and suspect as hell, not much more than that. Any other citizen that had their privacy invaded and folks would be up in arms. He is still, though president, allowed his privacy in these matters.


That said, its from 2005 so I'm not impressed. Whomever released these knew what they were doing. They are non-consequential nor do they have any bearing on what deals he may have made in the last 2-3 years. Basically a bone was thrown to take folks off the real news.

Actually, I would not be surprised if Trump released them. If so, it was a very brilliant play.

But who released them is not the point.

Maddow made an absolute fool of herself last night trying to read some tin foil hat conspiracy into it before she had any hard facts to back them up. That is irresponsible journalism.

Just because the bone was thrown, it does not mean you have to pick it up and go nuts over it, like Rachael Maddow did.

IMHO, she was just highlighting all of the reasons it is important to the American public to see what DJT's tax returns tell us about his finances. I could have done without some of the "hype" leading up to the show, however, I don't think she made an "absolute fool" of herself. Someone needs to keep asking these questions. He obviously has things to hide or he would have released his returns, as he promised NUMEROUS times to do. Yes, I know, HRC lied to the FBI, Obama has all sorts of "tin foil hat" conspiracies going on, ACA is in a death spiral.....

I was right with you on the highlighted part. Yes an investigation needs to be made. And yes it needs to be reported by a responsible journalist.

I watch MSNBC during the day and the men and women who fill those hours are enjoyable and informative. I try to watch all 3 channels to get a more balanced view.

But MSNBC, unless it wants to lose all credibility, needs to make Maddow take a leave of absence. Ever since she was crying on live TV when Trump won, and the way she has acted ever since, she comes across very unglued, imo.

This is what unglued looks like? The way DJT had acted, things he has said and tweeted (this year, let alone last year and years prior) Things that Kelleyanne has said about massacres and microwaves but Maddow is the one that is unglued? Huh. We are watching different worlds here.

 

[ruby59]

So...I'm going to go against the grain here.

I don't agree with how these were "released". If they were released by Trump himself, thats another matter. But tax returns are personal and private. Even as president, he does not by law have to release tax returns. Makes him an a$$ and suspect as hell, not much more than that. Any other citizen that had their privacy invaded and folks would be up in arms. He is still, though president, allowed his privacy in these matters.


That said, its from 2005 so I'm not impressed. Whomever released these knew what they were doing. They are non-consequential nor do they have any bearing on what deals he may have made in the last 2-3 years. Basically a bone was thrown to take folks off the real news.

Actually, I would not be surprised if Trump released them. If so, it was a very brilliant play.

But who released them is not the point.

Maddow made an absolute fool of herself last night trying to read some tin foil hat conspiracy into it before she had any hard facts to back them up. That is irresponsible journalism.

Just because the bone was thrown, it does not mean you have to pick it up and go nuts over it, like Rachael Maddow did.

IMHO, she was just highlighting all of the reasons it is important to the American public to see what DJT's tax returns tell us about his finances. I could have done without some of the "hype" leading up to the show, however, I don't think she made an "absolute fool" of herself. Someone needs to keep asking these questions. He obviously has things to hide or he would have released his returns, as he promised NUMEROUS times to do. Yes, I know, HRC lied to the FBI, Obama has all sorts of "tin foil hat" conspiracies going on, ACA is in a death spiral.....

I was right with you on the highlighted part. Yes an investigation needs to be made. And yes it needs to be reported by a responsible journalist.

I watch MSNBC during the day and the men and women who fill those hours are enjoyable and informative. I try to watch all 3 channels to get a more balanced view.

But MSNBC, unless it wants to lose all credibility, needs to make Maddow take a leave of absence. Ever since she was crying on live TV when Trump won, and the way she has acted ever since, she comes across very unglued, imo.

This is what unglued looks like? The way DJT had acted, things he has said and tweeted (this year, let alone last year and years prior) Things that Kelleyanne has said about massacres and microwaves but Maddow is the one that is unglued? Huh. We are watching different worlds here.

What does one have to do with the other. The subject is Rachael Maddow and her broadcast yesterday.

 

[sstephensid]

So...I'm going to go against the grain here.

I don't agree with how these were "released". If they were released by Trump himself, thats another matter. But tax returns are personal and private. Even as president, he does not by law have to release tax returns. Makes him an a$$ and suspect as hell, not much more than that. Any other citizen that had their privacy invaded and folks would be up in arms. He is still, though president, allowed his privacy in these matters.


That said, its from 2005 so I'm not impressed. Whomever released these knew what they were doing. They are non-consequential nor do they have any bearing on what deals he may have made in the last 2-3 years. Basically a bone was thrown to take folks off the real news.

Actually, I would not be surprised if Trump released them. If so, it was a very brilliant play.

But who released them is not the point.

Maddow made an absolute fool of herself last night trying to read some tin foil hat conspiracy into it before she had any hard facts to back them up. That is irresponsible journalism.

Just because the bone was thrown, it does not mean you have to pick it up and go nuts over it, like Rachael Maddow did.

IMHO, she was just highlighting all of the reasons it is important to the American public to see what DJT's tax returns tell us about his finances. I could have done without some of the "hype" leading up to the show, however, I don't think she made an "absolute fool" of herself. Someone needs to keep asking these questions. He obviously has things to hide or he would have released his returns, as he promised NUMEROUS times to do. Yes, I know, HRC lied to the FBI, Obama has all sorts of "tin foil hat" conspiracies going on, ACA is in a death spiral.....

I was right with you on the highlighted part. Yes an investigation needs to be made. And yes it needs to be reported by a responsible journalist.

I watch MSNBC during the day and the men and women who fill those hours are enjoyable and informative. I try to watch all 3 channels to get a more balanced view.

But MSNBC, unless it wants to lose all credibility, needs to make Maddow take a leave of absence. Ever since she was crying on live TV when Trump won, and the way she has acted ever since, she comes across very unglued, imo.

This is what unglued looks like? The way DJT had acted, things he has said and tweeted (this year, let alone last year and years prior) Things that Kelleyanne has said about massacres and microwaves but Maddow is the one that is unglued? Huh. We are watching different worlds here.

What does one have to do with the other. The subject is Rachael Maddow and her broadcast yesterday.

You are right. We are talking about Maddow and Donald Trump's taxes and his presidency win. But at the same time we are not talking about Donald Trump at all. Completely unrelated. Sad!

 

[ruby59]

So...I'm going to go against the grain here.

I don't agree with how these were "released". If they were released by Trump himself, thats another matter. But tax returns are personal and private. Even as president, he does not by law have to release tax returns. Makes him an a$$ and suspect as hell, not much more than that. Any other citizen that had their privacy invaded and folks would be up in arms. He is still, though president, allowed his privacy in these matters.


That said, its from 2005 so I'm not impressed. Whomever released these knew what they were doing. They are non-consequential nor do they have any bearing on what deals he may have made in the last 2-3 years. Basically a bone was thrown to take folks off the real news.

Actually, I would not be surprised if Trump released them. If so, it was a very brilliant play.

But who released them is not the point.

Maddow made an absolute fool of herself last night trying to read some tin foil hat conspiracy into it before she had any hard facts to back them up. That is irresponsible journalism.

Just because the bone was thrown, it does not mean you have to pick it up and go nuts over it, like Rachael Maddow did.

IMHO, she was just highlighting all of the reasons it is important to the American public to see what DJT's tax returns tell us about his finances. I could have done without some of the "hype" leading up to the show, however, I don't think she made an "absolute fool" of herself. Someone needs to keep asking these questions. He obviously has things to hide or he would have released his returns, as he promised NUMEROUS times to do. Yes, I know, HRC lied to the FBI, Obama has all sorts of "tin foil hat" conspiracies going on, ACA is in a death spiral.....

I was right with you on the highlighted part. Yes an investigation needs to be made. And yes it needs to be reported by a responsible journalist.

I watch MSNBC during the day and the men and women who fill those hours are enjoyable and informative. I try to watch all 3 channels to get a more balanced view.

But MSNBC, unless it wants to lose all credibility, needs to make Maddow take a leave of absence. Ever since she was crying on live TV when Trump won, and the way she has acted ever since, she comes across very unglued, imo.

This is what unglued looks like? The way DJT had acted, things he has said and tweeted (this year, let alone last year and years prior) Things that Kelleyanne has said about massacres and microwaves but Maddow is the one that is unglued? Huh. We are watching different worlds here.

What does one have to do with the other. The subject is Rachael Maddow and her broadcast yesterday.

You are right. We are talking about Maddow and Donald Trump's taxes and his presidency win. But at the same time we are not talking about Donald Trump at all. Completely unrelated. Sad!

Do you think her broadcast yesterday gave any validity to Donald Trump's taxes? If anything, it made people question the sanity of the democrats even more.

As I said, yes I would like to see him release it. But the bottom line is he does not have to.

 

[liaerfbv]

Ruby, to answer your question, it is not illegal for a reporter to share documents received from a source as long as they themselves did not break any laws (or have knowledge of laws being broken) in obtaining the materials. It's their job to verify the information as much as possible, and then they are free to report. Now, the person who obtained the materials may have broken some law or violated some ethical rule of their profession in releasing that return. I work for an attorney and I am bound by the same attorney-client privilege as my attorney is with regards to a client's personal information. I have access to thousands of tax returns, and if I were to leak any of them, I would be violating that privilege and would subject to termination and possible legal action from the client. In the event that Trump did not himself leak the return, he should be calling the tax preparer who did his 2005 return and demanding to know how that information was released.

Even as a bleeding heart liberal, I was not impressed with Rachel's coverage of this. While I wouldn't say she was hyperventilating, she certainly made a "show" out of very little information. I don't believe this was irresponsible journalism or that she needs to take a leave of absence. I just don't care for her reporting style.

 

[ruby59]

Ruby, to answer your question, it is not illegal for a reporter to share documents received from a source as long as they themselves did not break any laws (or have knowledge of laws being broken) in obtaining the materials. It's their job to verify the information as much as possible, and then they are free to report. Now, the person who obtained the materials may have broken some law or violated some ethical rule of their profession in releasing that return. I work for an attorney and I am bound by the same attorney-client privilege as my attorney is with regards to a client's personal information. I have access to thousands of tax returns, and if I were to leak any of them, I would be violating that privilege and would subject to termination and possible legal action from the client. In the event that Trump did not himself leak the return, he should be calling the tax preparer who did his 2005 return and demanding to know how that information was released.

Even as a bleeding heart liberal, I was not impressed with Rachel's coverage of this. While I wouldn't say she was hyperventilating, she certainly made a "show" out of very little information. I don't believe this was irresponsible journalism or that she needs to take a leave of absence. I just don't care for her reporting style.

I was getting conflicting info yesterday on whether it was legal or not, so thank you for clearing that up.