NY Times gets Trump’s tax returns (1 Viewer)

[brandon]

Trump refused to talk about his tax returns and blasted the Times report as "totally fake news" on Sunday. But the article portrays the anti-elite crusader who rails against a corrupt system as actually using its loopholes to avoid paying any federal taxes at all in 10 of 15 years beginning in 2000 by writing off his own staggering losses.

In 2016 and 2017 each, Trump paid just $750 in federal income taxes -- far less than many Americans who are working hard amid a deep recession to stay afloat. Trump took huge deductions -- including $70,000 to take care of his hair -- and also appeared to write off hundreds of thousands of dollars paying his daughter Ivanka as a consultant to the Trump Organization, according to the Times report. The story also reveals the extent to which Trump's status as President is being used to shore up his losing ventures — for example his hotel in Washington, DC, and his golf resorts.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/28/politics/donald-trump-taxes-election-2020-joe-biden-debate/index.html

So there it is. I paid more in 2016 and 2017 in taxes than our billionaire president. Not even just all year...I paid more than he did in one lump sum with my tax return than he did all year.

$750.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

or he has hit that "sweet spot" on ROI and selling his shares in Trump and will move on Nov 3rd.

he spent $66mm in 2016.

$8000 in 2020.

He got what he wanted in 2016 and sees the writing on the wall for 2020. No use throwing good money at a losing proposition.

I've said it a million times, but I don't think Trump ever expected to win in 2016. It was a publicity stunt, and 66 million was a marketing cost. If it led to his own media empire based around Trumpism, he'd make that back in no time.

There's no need to invest in 2020 because his 2016 publicity stunt succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. He's now, in some ways, the most influential person in the country. I'm not sure anyone else has 40% of the population that would believe water was dry if he told them so.

 

[efil4]

I've said it a million times, but I don't think Trump ever expected to win in 2016. It was a publicity stunt, and 66 million was a marketing cost. If it led to his own media empire based around Trumpism, he'd make that back in no time.

There's no need to invest in 2020 because his 2016 publicity stunt succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. He's now, in some ways, the most influential person in the country. I'm not sure anyone else has 40% of the population that would believe water was dry if he told them so.

yep.

Look at his development deals. He gets his $$$ up front almost always. When the deal tanks, he already made his money so its no big deal.

Same. exact. scenario.

 

[wardorican]

Ward did you read the original thread? there was a $15 million cash withdrawal from that account by Trump in 2017. That doesn’t exactly square with the accountant’s statement. So we need more investigation.

I was just reading the article.. not the tweets. I read that later. So, I see what you're saying. There may have been funny business beyond their simple explanation.

 

[wardorican]

I thought we had a thread on this, but can't find it...

Judge orders tax lawyers to hand over Trump organization docs to NY AG

A judge in New York on Friday ordered a law firm serving as counsel to the Trump Organization to turn over documents related to the former president’s business to the state’s attorney g…

thehill.com

A judge in New York on Friday ordered a law firm serving as counsel to the Trump Organization to turn over documents related to the former president's business to the state's attorney general.

New York State Supreme Court Judge Arthur Engoron said in an order that he had completed a review of documents from the firm Morgan, Lewis & Bockius and determined that at least some of them were not privileged and should be handed over to the attorney general's office, which had subpoenaed the firm and the Trump Organization.

The court found that many of the communications Morgan Lewis marked as privileged were communications addressing business tasks and decisions, not exchanges soliciting or rendering
legal advice.

 

[DaveXA]

I thought we had a thread on this, but can't find it...

Judge orders tax lawyers to hand over Trump organization docs to NY AG

A judge in New York on Friday ordered a law firm serving as counsel to the Trump Organization to turn over documents related to the former president’s business to the state’s attorney g…

thehill.com

Interesting, but still not his personal tax records. Curious if that ever happens.

 

[Lapaz]

I wonder if we're not hearing about any Trump indictments due to the impeachment?

 

[Richard]

I wonder if we're not hearing about any Trump indictments due to the impeachment?

I doubt it. If anything, the release of information contained in an indictment could prove more damaging to Trump's case from a political POV. Assuming you are asking if a district attorney or US Attorney would withhold an indictment for political reasons, I believe some would, but it these cases, I can't imagine how their political goals would align with that of the impeachment.

 

[Roofgardener]

Just out of curiousity.. how did the NY Times get hold of Trumps business tax records ? Is publishing those details legal ?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Just out of curiousity.. how did the NY Times get hold of Trumps business tax records ? Is publishing those details legal ?

My understanding is that it is generally legal for the press to publish things like that, but if someone illegally obtained those documents and provided it to the press they would still have legal liability. So the NYT is protected but whoever leaked that info is not.

 

[Roofgardener]

My understanding is that it is generally legal for the press to publish things like that, but if someone illegally obtained those documents and provided it to the press they would still have legal liability. So the NYT is protected but whoever leaked that info is not.

Truly ? Wow.. that seems.. hypocritical ?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Truly ? Wow.. that seems.. hypocritical ?

Why? Freedom of the press is a bedrock principle of this country. If they obtain information that is of public interest, they have a right to publish it.

Now, if someone stole that information to give it to the press, that is not protected. Of course you can get into whistleblower protections but that is highly dependent on the situation. I don't see a compelling whistleblower case for illegally releasing Trump's tax returns.

 

[Roofgardener]

Why? Freedom of the press is a bedrock principle of this country. If they obtain information that is of public interest, they have a right to publish it.

Now, if someone stole that information to give it to the press, that is not protected. Of course you can get into whistleblower protections but that is highly dependent on the situation. I don't see a compelling whistleblower case for illegally releasing Trump's tax returns.

How would you like it if they published YOUR tax returns ? Or your credit card details ? (with itemised expenditure).

The person who released the Tax details should be prosecuted. But the people who facilitated those returns being disseminated should ALSO face some sort of sanction ?

It's like.. in UK law, you can be prosecuted for burgelry. But you can ALSO be prosecuted for trying to sell the burgled items.

 

[FullMonte]

Truly ? Wow.. that seems.. hypocritical ?

Why would it be hypocritical. While there are some cases that would be fairly clear, how is the publisher supposed to know in every case that the information that they received was legally obtained? Should a newspaper be prosecuted for publishing illegally obtained information when the person who presented it to them claimed that he was the legal owner of said information?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

How would you like it if they published YOUR tax returns ? Or your credit card details ? (with itemised expenditure).

The person who released the Tax details should be prosecuted. But the people who facilitated those returns being disseminated should ALSO face some sort of sanction ?

It's like.. in UK law, you can be prosecuted for burgelry. But you can ALSO be prosecuted for trying to sell the burgled items.

The US has a history of around 50 years of President's releasing their tax returns, and it's something the public discusses. So there is a history that predates Trump that shows there is a compelling public interest in Presidential tax returns. I think that is enough for the NYT to show that Trump's tax returns is newsworthy.

It's also the reason they are protected when they publish classified information. It's obviously newsworthy, and they can make a compelling argument that it's in the public's interest to know that information, so they are safe even though that information was leaked illegally.

 

[Yggdrasill]

How would you like it if they published YOUR tax returns ? Or your credit card details ? (with itemised expenditure).

The person who released the Tax details should be prosecuted. But the people who facilitated those returns being disseminated should ALSO face some sort of sanction ?

It's like.. in UK law, you can be prosecuted for burgelry. But you can ALSO be prosecuted for trying to sell the burgled items.

I probably wouldn't care, as I have nothing to hide, but I get your point. On the other hand, I am not running for public office (let alone the nation's highest office), I did not promise to release my returns and then renege on that promise, I have not made (false) claims about my net worth and business acumen to boost my image as a savvy and wildly successful businessman, I have not lied repeatedly about how much of a start I got in business from my father, and so on and on and on.

Your question about protection of the press is a good one, and I think you have to take the bitter with the sweet. Without the ability to publish freely, some secrets that need to come to light will not, e.g., the Pentagon Papers, the NSA's domestic spying program. The government would have a complete strangehold on information. You expect the press to conduct intense due diligence including massive fact checking and redundant sourcing, which the reputable publications do.

As long as they stick with the facts, it's fair game. If they lie, they will be sued for libel; the recent lawsuit by Dominion against Fox News being a case in point.

This article is pretty good. "The press was protected [by the Founders] so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government."

Why the Press Can Publish Any Classified Material It Likes

Justice Hugo Black explained it in his 1971 opinion in New York Times v. United States.

www.theatlantic.com

And see the link to Justice Hugo Black's opinion in New York Times vs The United States.

NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES. UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. The WASHINGTON POST COMPANY et al.

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[Roofgardener]

Wow.. that's VERY interesting Yggdrasill. We do it slightly differently in the UK.

Thanks for posting those links !

 

[Roofgardener]

The US has a history of around 50 years of President's releasing their tax returns, and it's something the public discusses. So there is a history that predates Trump that shows there is a compelling public interest in Presidential tax returns. I think that is enough for the NYT to show that Trump's tax returns is newsworthy.

It's also the reason they are protected when they publish classified information. It's obviously newsworthy, and they can make a compelling argument that it's in the public's interest to know that information, so they are safe even though that information was leaked illegally.

Hmmmm....
In the USA, what is the term for somebody who profits from illegal activity ?

 

[wardorican]

Wow.. that's VERY interesting Yggdrasill. We do it slightly differently in the UK.

Thanks for posting those links !

Hmmmm....
In the USA, what is the term for somebody who profits from illegal activity ?

The juxtaposition is hilarious.