BREAKING...Maddow: we've got Trump's tax returns!

[gipper]

If anyone takes the so-called president down with good solid investigation and facts, it will be Rachel Maddow. Good for her. She needs to keep digging.

Libs think Maddow is great but in reality, she is fake news.

Is it any wonder Americans are so divided?

RWnuts think everything unpleasant is fake news. It's like a fundamentalist Christian's attitude towards evolution.

What was "unpleasant" about her releasing Trump's tax returns? It was illegal but that means nothing to the left, unless it is done to one of them.

 

[Auld Phart]

Maddow stated that they had to get Trump's tax return to make sure there were not foreign money "dumps" that would influence Trump in ways inconsistent with American interests.

How noble! Except that:

1. There is no basis for this belief; and

2. The return in question did not reveal any such thing.

By Maddow's logic we ought to take a marathon runner (a perfectly healthy person) and do open heart surgery on him because there may be some plaque buildup in his aortic arteries that may one day result in a heart attack.

No, this is NOT ok!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

No that isn't quite the same thing. And do you really think if someone was trying to bury Trump that had access to his returns would pick 2005 as the one to send to a reporter?

The return was marked 'client copy' which means, if that's legitimate, that copies were made of Trump's own copy.

and which one of his tax attorneys released it?

Just because it was the Client Copy, doesn't mean Trump kept it in his personal file cabinet.

 

[Lewdog]

Maddow stated that they had to get Trump's tax return to make sure there were not foreign money "dumps" that would influence Trump in ways inconsistent with American interests.

How noble! Except that:

1. There is no basis for this belief; and

2. The return in question did not reveal any such thing.

By Maddow's logic we ought to take a marathon runner (a perfectly healthy person) and do open heart surgery on him because there may be some plaque buildup in his aortic arteries that may one day result in a heart attack.

No, this is NOT ok!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

No that isn't quite the same thing. And do you really think if someone was trying to bury Trump that had access to his returns would pick 2005 as the one to send to a reporter?

You are getting too far ahead and trying to assume motive. Watch out.

How is that getting ahead of anything? Be real...if you had the opportunity to cherry pick a Trump tax return to send to a reporter and you were doing so with ill-intent, would you send just 2 pages of the 12 year old tax return that showed absolutely nothing? No, you wouldn't. It's common sense.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Why do we care what his tax return was like 12 years ago?
Big f-ing deal.

It was a big deal last night, until it wasn't.

 

[brummelben]

Maddow stated that they had to get Trump's tax return to make sure there were not foreign money "dumps" that would influence Trump in ways inconsistent with American interests.

How noble! Except that:

1. There is no basis for this belief; and

2. The return in question did not reveal any such thing.

By Maddow's logic we ought to take a marathon runner (a perfectly healthy person) and do open heart surgery on him because there may be some plaque buildup in his aortic arteries that may one day result in a heart attack.

No, this is NOT ok!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

No that isn't quite the same thing. And do you really think if someone was trying to bury Trump that had access to his returns would pick 2005 as the one to send to a reporter?

You are getting too far ahead and trying to assume motive. Watch out.

Maddow stated that they had to get Trump's tax return to make sure there were not foreign money "dumps" that would influence Trump in ways inconsistent with American interests.

How noble! Except that:

1. There is no basis for this belief

Just exactly how do you know this?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

She simply reported it. She didn't imply anything was wrong with the return.

Slate, usually a political ally of hers, strongly disagrees: Rachel Maddow Turned a Scoop on Donald Trump’s Taxes Into a Cynical, Self-Defeating Spectacle

She blew it. It would best to admit it.
.

I watched it. I don't need someone else's opinion to know what to think about it.

Okay. Run with that then.

So will the GOP, understandably.
.

Whatever, dude.

Please highlight what she reported that was misleading or otherwise incorrect.
She simply reported it.

Okay, got it, she did nothing wrong, she didn't screw up.

I believe you.
.

Are you unable to articulate how?

 

[OldLady]

Why do we care what his tax return was like 12 years ago?
Big f-ing deal.

Strange.....6 months ago it was a big deal. Now that you know the media was blowing air up your skirt it doesn't matter.

I personally never thought it was a big deal, because Trump pretty much TOLD us he paid as little as possible--hinted he paid basically nothing--and I believe him. It was after 2005 when he took that huge loss writeoff and it is the tax returns in the last five years that interest me.
Shouldn't that audit be about finished by now?
Is the Deep State not working in the IRS? Will no one leak it when that audit is complete?

Trump said he always pays what he has to pay by law.

I never said he was being illegal. (Although he wouldn't be audited every year if the IRS wasn't pretty sure there would be "irregularities.") Trump could just blame the accountants if there was a problem.
It's not for a "gotcha." It's to shut everyone up about "possible business interests in Russia." I'm so sick of hearing speculation about that--let's get it OVER with.

 

[JBond]

The Donald paid $38, 435.451.00 in Taxes in 2005.


There is NOTHING in the illegally obtained return to discredit DJT. NOTHING


Are you happy now, BITCH.


.


.

Yeah, he paid 24% tax rate.

A higher rate than Obama. Just saying.

 

[MisterBeale]

If anyone takes the so-called president down with good solid investigation and facts, it will be Rachel Maddow. Good for her. She needs to keep digging.

That's akin to saying two years ago;

If anyone takes the so-called president down with good solid investigation and facts, it will be Glen Beck. Good for him. He needs to keep digging.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

If anyone takes the so-called president down with good solid investigation and facts, it will be Rachel Maddow. Good for her. She needs to keep digging.

At the rate madcow is going she will be breaking news on his 2009 taxes during his 2020 re-election.

 

[The Breeze]

If anyone takes the so-called president down with good solid investigation and facts, it will be Rachel Maddow. Good for her. She needs to keep digging.

Libs think Maddow is great but in reality, she is fake news.

Is it any wonder Americans are so divided?

You think this is over?

Been over since November.

 

[OldLady]

Why do we care what his tax return was like 12 years ago?
Big f-ing deal.

It was a big deal last night, until it wasn't.

I missed all the drama. We were having a Nor'easter and the winds were making me nervous so I took a sleeping pill and went to bed. Missed all the excitement. Dang.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Maddow stated that they had to get Trump's tax return to make sure there were not foreign money "dumps" that would influence Trump in ways inconsistent with American interests.

How noble! Except that:

1. There is no basis for this belief; and

2. The return in question did not reveal any such thing.

By Maddow's logic we ought to take a marathon runner (a perfectly healthy person) and do open heart surgery on him because there may be some plaque buildup in his aortic arteries that may one day result in a heart attack.

No, this is NOT ok!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

No that isn't quite the same thing. And do you really think if someone was trying to bury Trump that had access to his returns would pick 2005 as the one to send to a reporter?

You are getting too far ahead and trying to assume motive. Watch out.

Maddow stated that they had to get Trump's tax return to make sure there were not foreign money "dumps" that would influence Trump in ways inconsistent with American interests.

How noble! Except that:

1. There is no basis for this belief

Just exactly how do you know this?

The schedules list the sources of the income. The full returns are required to determine that.

 

[mudwhistle]

Jake- You are everything wrong about America that Mr. Trump is trying to fix. That is why you and your Democrat buddies and rhino pubs were sent out of town on a rail. The people spoke because we were, and are tired of your leftist perception of the way America should be. Sorry, we were not ready to go down the crapper even though Obama had us circling the drain. Your unicorn, pixie dust envision of America does not exist. Well, not anymore since real Americans have spoken. Your time has passed. Suck it up buttercup -Geaux

The GOP lost seats in the House and the Senate, fact. 77 thousand votes in MI, MN, and WI does not a mandate make for the rest of America. No one has shown what law has been broken. And the far right transforming America? You guys are fumbing and bumbling, and America and the world is laughing at you freeks.

What law?

How bout identity theft.

Wrong.

Look it up.

I don't need to look it up. I've given you the real laws that matter here, and you continue to argue it.

Bullshit.

Any document with your name and SSN on it can be missused and is classified as identity theft.

 

[Doc1]

A big fat nothing burger, the left looks like fools once again. Maddow is a buffoon

 

[Mac1958]

Slate, usually a political ally of hers, strongly disagrees: Rachel Maddow Turned a Scoop on Donald Trump’s Taxes Into a Cynical, Self-Defeating Spectacle

She blew it. It would best to admit it.
.

I watched it. I don't need someone else's opinion to know what to think about it.

Okay. Run with that then.

So will the GOP, understandably.
.

Whatever, dude.

Please highlight what she reported that was misleading or otherwise incorrect.
She simply reported it.

Okay, got it, she did nothing wrong, she didn't screw up.

I believe you.
.

Are you unable to articulate how?

Why in the world would I bother? You're ideologically obligated to defend her, and you'll do that regardless of what I say.

You could read the Slate article for all the detail you need, but you're not going to bend, and we both know it.

Believe what you will. I have nothing to gain by wasting my time.
.

 

[miketx]

Why do we care what his tax return was like 12 years ago?
Big f-ing deal.

It was a big deal last night, until it wasn't.

I missed all the drama. We were having a Nor'easter and the winds were making me nervous so I took a sleeping pill and went to bed. Missed all the excitement. Dang.

I would have thought you would want to be alert during a storm in case you have to take some action.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If anyone takes the so-called president down with good solid investigation and facts, it will be Rachel Maddow. Good for her. She needs to keep digging.

Libs think Maddow is great but in reality, she is fake news.

Is it any wonder Americans are so divided?

RWnuts think everything unpleasant is fake news. It's like a fundamentalist Christian's attitude towards evolution.

What was "unpleasant" about her releasing Trump's tax returns? It was illegal but that means nothing to the left, unless it is done to one of them.

Did it mean anything to you when the illegally obtained DNC emails were published?

 

[martybegan]

Why do people keep arguing this? As a journalist who was given the information anonymously she did not break any laws. Holy shit you people need to learn the laws before starting 5 million threads and posts about this.

It's called Journalistic Privilege. She did not solicit the information and therefor broke no laws.

How can you sit and say it was a "nothing burger" in one breath and then ask for her to be arrested in the next... you're having a mental meltdown.

because if it truly is a crime to disseminate someone's tax information, the content of said tax return is meaningless.

And ask the people over at Gawker how far you can stretch journalistic privilege.

Big difference between a sex tape they PAID for...which is solicitation, and what happened last night. Insert another quarter and please try again.

So a journalist can release kiddie porn and be shielded?

I know this is an extreme example, but if the tax law states you cannot release someone's tax information without their knowledge (or a court order maybe) why does the journalists shield protect you?

 

[jknowgood]

Maddow

Look, Maddow can do whatever dykes do. But when that dude goes on TV she is part of the press; I.e., part of the purported constitutional Check on government power becoming too concentrated.

However, when the press, or factions therein, start choosing political sides then it can no longer fulfill this duty. A biased press is a corrupt press. They disguise this corruption by labeling it "investigative journalism".

The MSM is corrupt, MSNBC is corrupt, and Maddow is corrupt. Maddow was not breaking a story. Rather, she was perpetuating a narrative and trying to undermine Trump.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Advocacy journalism is a legitimate subset of journalism in general.

Political hit jobs are not legitimate journalism.

So in what category do you put Rachel Maddow, Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, Bill O'Reilly?

Dan Rather.