Bob Woodward (Journalist who broke Watergate): I would risk jail to release Trump's returns

[A Perez]

It looks like the legendary Bob Woodward would also risk jail by publishing Donald Trump's tax returns. From the Boston Globe several days ago:

The legandary Bob Woodward said it releasing Trump's tax information was worth going to jail. From the Washington Post:
Dean Baquet, executive editor of The New York Times, and Bob Woodward, associate editor of The Washington Post, made the comments during a panel discussion this past weekend at Harvard University.

Dean Baquet, Bob Woodward say they would risk jail time to publish Donald Trump’s tax returns - The Boston Globe

Holliston filmmaker who created the Edward Snowden documentary “Citizenfour,” prompted the comments by saying Woodward told her that to publish Trump’s returns would be illegal.

 

[WheelieAddict]

Someone is going to do it.

 

[Norman]

Why?

There was nothing interesting what so ever in the return. I just don't get it... why vandalize privacy if there is nothing to gain?

Except of course, the fact that the journalist managed to share his complete ignorance on how the tax code functions. He implied that very basic deductions are somehow shady.

Like should you pay taxes if your stock goes down and then comes back up... according to his logic the answer is you should pay taxes when it comes back up. Journalistic standards completely forgotten, what moron!

 

[IsaacNewton]

A guy that hangs his whole campaign on "I'm a great businessman, trust me" won't release his tax returns.


Everyone needs a refresher course on what a gigantic 'red flag' is.

 

[forkup]

Why?

There was nothing interesting what so ever in the return. I just don't get it... why vandalize privacy if there is nothing to gain?

Except of course, the fact that the journalist managed to share his complete ignorance on how the tax code functions. He implied that very basic deductions are somehow shady.

Like should you pay taxes if your stock goes down and then comes back up... according to his logic the answer is you should pay taxes when it comes back up. Journalistic standards completely forgotten, what moron!

Hmms a loss of almost 1 billion not interesting? From someone who claims he's a VERY successful businessman. The simple fact that he doesn't publish it, amids pressure and continuous negative news cycles says something. If it's not damaging to his campaign why NOT release it? It relates directly to his trustworthiness and gives the Clinton campaign a ready answer on any attack when questioning hers. Or he's dumb or whatever is in it ,is so damaging he can't release them. If you have another explanation I'm eager to hear it?

 

[Fenton Lum]

Why?

There was nothing interesting what so ever in the return. I just don't get it... why vandalize privacy if there is nothing to gain?

Except of course, the fact that the journalist managed to share his complete ignorance on how the tax code functions. He implied that very basic deductions are somehow shady.

Like should you pay taxes if your stock goes down and then comes back up... according to his logic the answer is you should pay taxes when it comes back up. Journalistic standards completely forgotten, what moron!

Trump's special, he shouldn't be held to the same standards as other previous presidents.

 

[Norman]

Why?

There was nothing interesting what so ever in the return. I just don't get it... why vandalize privacy if there is nothing to gain?

Except of course, the fact that the journalist managed to share his complete ignorance on how the tax code functions. He implied that very basic deductions are somehow shady.

Like should you pay taxes if your stock goes down and then comes back up... according to his logic the answer is you should pay taxes when it comes back up. Journalistic standards completely forgotten, what moron!

Hmms a loss of almost 1 billion not interesting? From someone who claims he's a VERY successful businessman. The simple fact that he doesn't publish it, amids pressure and continuous negative news cycles says something. If it's not damaging to his campaign why NOT release it? It relates directly to his trustworthiness and gives the Clinton campaign a ready answer on any attack when questioning hers. Or he's dumb or whatever is in it ,is so damaging he can't release them. If you have another explanation I'm eager to hear it?

The fact is business is uncertain, every businessman knows it. Not every year is great... You are just being stupid.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Why?

There was nothing interesting what so ever in the return. I just don't get it... why vandalize privacy if there is nothing to gain?

Except of course, the fact that the journalist managed to share his complete ignorance on how the tax code functions. He implied that very basic deductions are somehow shady.

Like should you pay taxes if your stock goes down and then comes back up... according to his logic the answer is you should pay taxes when it comes back up. Journalistic standards completely forgotten, what moron!

Hmms a loss of almost 1 billion not interesting? From someone who claims he's a VERY successful businessman. The simple fact that he doesn't publish it, amids pressure and continuous negative news cycles says something. If it's not damaging to his campaign why NOT release it? It relates directly to his trustworthiness and gives the Clinton campaign a ready answer on any attack when questioning hers. Or he's dumb or whatever is in it ,is so damaging he can't release them. If you have another explanation I'm eager to hear it?

The fact is business is uncertain, every businessman knows it. Not every year is great... You are just being stupid.

And releasing the returns would clear all that up.

 

[turzovka]

A guy that hangs his whole campaign on "I'm a great businessman, trust me" won't release his tax returns.


Everyone needs a refresher course on what a gigantic 'red flag' is.

Sure, let me help.

If you see a red flag by Obama’s or Hillary’s name and it deals with serious lies or cover ups or crimes --- it means “there is nothing here to concern yourself with because it is just right wing nut jobs making stuff up ---- so move on and if you do not see it on CNN it is of no matter.”

 

[forkup]

Why?

There was nothing interesting what so ever in the return. I just don't get it... why vandalize privacy if there is nothing to gain?

Except of course, the fact that the journalist managed to share his complete ignorance on how the tax code functions. He implied that very basic deductions are somehow shady.

Like should you pay taxes if your stock goes down and then comes back up... according to his logic the answer is you should pay taxes when it comes back up. Journalistic standards completely forgotten, what moron!

Hmms a loss of almost 1 billion not interesting? From someone who claims he's a VERY successful businessman. The simple fact that he doesn't publish it, amids pressure and continuous negative news cycles says something. If it's not damaging to his campaign why NOT release it? It relates directly to his trustworthiness and gives the Clinton campaign a ready answer on any attack when questioning hers. Or he's dumb or whatever is in it ,is so damaging he can't release them. If you have another explanation I'm eager to hear it?

The fact is business is uncertain, every businessman knows it. Not every year is great... You are just being stupid.

That's a bad answer. The 1 tax return we got shows him to be not successful. I'm pretty sure he's had better years but guess what? Since he isn't releasing his tax returns I can't be certain. And I see you didn't go into the second part of it at all

 

[Defiant1]

A guy that hangs his whole campaign on "I'm a great businessman, trust me" won't release his tax returns.


Everyone needs a refresher course on what a gigantic 'red flag' is.

Do you expect to see the tax returns for Trump's corporations on his personal tax return?

 

[Norman]

Why?

There was nothing interesting what so ever in the return. I just don't get it... why vandalize privacy if there is nothing to gain?

Except of course, the fact that the journalist managed to share his complete ignorance on how the tax code functions. He implied that very basic deductions are somehow shady.

Like should you pay taxes if your stock goes down and then comes back up... according to his logic the answer is you should pay taxes when it comes back up. Journalistic standards completely forgotten, what moron!

Hmms a loss of almost 1 billion not interesting? From someone who claims he's a VERY successful businessman. The simple fact that he doesn't publish it, amids pressure and continuous negative news cycles says something. If it's not damaging to his campaign why NOT release it? It relates directly to his trustworthiness and gives the Clinton campaign a ready answer on any attack when questioning hers. Or he's dumb or whatever is in it ,is so damaging he can't release them. If you have another explanation I'm eager to hear it?

The fact is business is uncertain, every businessman knows it. Not every year is great... You are just being stupid.

That's a bad answer. The 1 tax return we got shows him to be not successful. I'm pretty sure he's had better years but guess what? Since he isn't releasing his tax returns I can't be certain. And I see you didn't go into the second part of it at all

Thankfully there are good estimates of his net-worth, so you can be sure that he is very rich.

You are being extremely stupid. Besides that, why do you care so much about how rich he is? I thought that was not a democrat thing. I suppose, presidency is only for the ultra rich for you guys.

 

[Norman]

A guy that hangs his whole campaign on "I'm a great businessman, trust me" won't release his tax returns.


Everyone needs a refresher course on what a gigantic 'red flag' is.

Do you expect to see the tax returns for Trump's corporations on his personal tax return?

At this point it's pretty evident that these guys have no clue what they are talking about... and they don't care.

 

[Rustic]

A guy that hangs his whole campaign on "I'm a great businessman, trust me" won't release his tax returns.


Everyone needs a refresher course on what a gigantic 'red flag' is.

Personal information of any sort should not be released including financial, what's the difference between financial and medical? Who the fuck would ever want to trust the fucking government with personal information all they do is fuck people over… Dip shit Lol

 

[forkup]

Why?

There was nothing interesting what so ever in the return. I just don't get it... why vandalize privacy if there is nothing to gain?

Except of course, the fact that the journalist managed to share his complete ignorance on how the tax code functions. He implied that very basic deductions are somehow shady.

Like should you pay taxes if your stock goes down and then comes back up... according to his logic the answer is you should pay taxes when it comes back up. Journalistic standards completely forgotten, what moron!

Hmms a loss of almost 1 billion not interesting? From someone who claims he's a VERY successful businessman. The simple fact that he doesn't publish it, amids pressure and continuous negative news cycles says something. If it's not damaging to his campaign why NOT release it? It relates directly to his trustworthiness and gives the Clinton campaign a ready answer on any attack when questioning hers. Or he's dumb or whatever is in it ,is so damaging he can't release them. If you have another explanation I'm eager to hear it?

The fact is business is uncertain, every businessman knows it. Not every year is great... You are just being stupid.

That's a bad answer. The 1 tax return we got shows him to be not successful. I'm pretty sure he's had better years but guess what? Since he isn't releasing his tax returns I can't be certain. And I see you didn't go into the second part of it at all

Thankfully there are good estimates of his net-worth, so you can be sure that he is very rich.

You are being extremely stupid. Besides that, why do you care so much about how rich he is? I thought that was not a democrat thing. I suppose, presidency is only for the ultra rich for you guys.

LOL still not answering the actual premise of the OP or for that matter anything related to it.I don't care how rich he is. But when you say there wasn't anything interesting in the tax return, I disagreed not because he's rich, but because one of his biggest talking points and apparent allure to his supporters is the claim that he's been GREAT at what he does. This tax return proves that the only year we can check he wasn't. And again what reason can you come up with, that he doesn't put these speculations one way or another to bed?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It looks like the legendary Bob Woodward would also risk jail by publishing Donald Trump's tax returns. From the Boston Globe several days ago:

The legandary Bob Woodward said it releasing Trump's tax information was worth going to jail. From the Washington Post:
Dean Baquet, executive editor of The New York Times, and Bob Woodward, associate editor of The Washington Post, made the comments during a panel discussion this past weekend at Harvard University.

Dean Baquet, Bob Woodward say they would risk jail time to publish Donald Trump’s tax returns - The Boston Globe

Holliston filmmaker who created the Edward Snowden documentary “Citizenfour,” prompted the comments by saying Woodward told her that to publish Trump’s returns would be illegal.

Hopefully he'll get his wish.

Did he mention that he'd suck Hillary's dick to keep silent about the Obama Operation to arm ISIS through Benghazi?