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

[Soggy in NOLA]

Blew what? She's been a notable joke for years.

 

[Mac1958]

She didn't research crap. She was given two pages that make the Trump narratives by leftists, (he is broke/doesn't pay taxes) look completely foolish.

Yeah, it's not terribly difficult to decipher what happened here. She got her hands on this thing, her little partisan heart went all a-flutter - political advantage! - and she ran with it without really considering what she was doing.
.

 

[Eaglewings]

Are you either a tax lawyer or tax attorney? I am sure the real lawyers at NBC know what they are doing

Just like the lawyers at CBS approved the Dan Rather Bush National Guard Memo?

Nothing is illegal...lol..

He wants the headlines on this , just like it worked on Jeff Sessions and his lying wire tapping tweets..

I note your non-answer, you cheap, dime store hack.

Dude, go ahead and be led like a little puppy...eating up right out of Trumps hand that is feeding you..

It would be illegal if an IRS person leaked it..

Trump is the one would told everyone that he didn't pay taxes...

If there had been anything incriminating I would be agreeing with you...but Trump is lying his ass off right now..

Targeting taxpayers

Pretty sure Trump trolled mad cow with his return. She looked like a distracted loon.

Sure.....It is a good thing that you take her lightly.

No one, outside of looney feminists, and diehard leftists take her seriously. She is a caricature of everything that is wrong with the Democrat party.

Exactly what Trump wants , to discredit her.. She has been getting some very good stories out these last few weeks on connecting the Dots to Russia...

.

Maddow is an excellent researcher. This isn't over by a long shot....anyone who things it is, is a simpleton of the Drumpfster variety.

She didn't research crap. She was given two pages that make the Trump narratives by leftists, (he is broke/doesn't pay taxes) look completely foolish.

Trump is the one who said that he doesn't pay taxes...not Maddow or the lefts..

.

 

[saveliberty]

2005 is not even a current tax return, it was for profit sleaze by Maddow.

 

[rich stacy]

Seems to me you sue Maddow for what she profited from in regards to the disclosure.

A suit at common law would require more than not liking what she did. Trump would have to show some legal bar to Maddows disclosure. And because no law was broken by Maddow, there are no grounds to sue. Trump could start a frivilous lawsuit, but that would be a very bad position to be in having the deep pocket exposure in a counter suit.

 

[Mac1958]

Blew what? She's been a notable joke for years.

I've always thought she was very good at what she does - presenting a biased, partisan version of the news - and she has certainly created and maintained a top reputation with the "progressives". It'll be interesting to see if that reputation has been damaged by this.

If this thread is any indication, not much. That's not terribly surprising.
.

 

[ClosedCaption]

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

Russia has the right media model. Being part of the media means your purpose is to support politicians.

- signed

Junior Nazis

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I'm loving watching liberals trying to figure out a way to spin this into a win!!

 

[rich stacy]

She didn't research crap. She was given two pages that make the Trump narratives by leftists, (he is broke/doesn't pay taxes) look completely foolish.

Unless Maddow knew the source of the information she was given was from someone prohibited by law to make that disclosure, there can be no finding of legal, criminal or civil, culpability by disclosing it.

Add the 1st amendment protections of the press, and even knowing the information was illegally obtained, Maddow has no legal exposure by making it public The ruling in the Pentagon Papers case against the New York Times, established the journalistic right to even publish classified government information, without facing legal consequences.

 

[The Original Tree]

She had a nothing burger, mad cow is too stupid for her own good

Maybe this is just the tip of the iceberg....

Well where's the proof? Somewhere with the "Russian connection"? Fucking progressives need to fucking get a life. They don't know their ass from a hole in the ground

Exactly where Trump wants his people...and when they start looking anywhere else he tweets fake wiretapping and his 2 page of nothing taxes..2005 taxes BTW

View attachment 116863

His taxes are no one's business but his own…

Nixon was the only presidential candidate or president who didn't want the public to see his taxes...

was he hiding something? Hummm

That's not true either. I can provide a list a mile long.

Ralph Nader was a candidate of notoriety that refused to release his tax returns, as was his right not to.

You are only required to submit a financial disclosure which is 10 times more detailed than a tax return, and is available to THE PUBLIC.

So this Phucking Lying Narrative that Trump is hiding something is utter LYING BULLSHIT, when Madcow or anyone can get access to the financial disclosure.

All his investments, properties, everything are all listed there....everything.

 

[mudwhistle]

Anyone who gives raunchy madcow any credibility are damn fools.

Anybody who gives Rachel Maddow a copy of Trumps tax return, if they worked for the IRS broke the law, but Maddow has no criminal liability.

Oh yes she does there are laws against her even HAVING the records much less releasing them. Any possession of any criminally obtained item is in fact a crime, All of the attempts and requests to obtain them are in fact criminal conspiracy. It is high time they were treated as such, and the people behind all of it were arrested and convicted of their crimes.

Man-brow will be charged with receiving stolen goods. Other felony charges are being drawn up by the AG today.
Bank on it!

26 U.S. Code § 7213 - Unauthorized disclosure of information

.
(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.
(4) Solicitation

It shall be unlawful for any person willfully to offer any item of material value in exchange for any return or return information (as defined in section 6103(b)) and to receive as a result of such solicitation 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.
(5) Shareholders

It shall be unlawful for any person to whom a return or return information (as defined in section 6103(b)) is disclosed pursuant to the provisions of section 6103(e)(1)(D)(iii) willfully to disclose such return or return information in any manner not provided by law. Any violation of this paragraph shall be a felony punishable by a fine in any amount not to exceed $5,000, or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Blew what? She's been a notable joke for years.

I've always thought she was very good at what she does - presenting a biased, partisan version of the news - and she has certainly created and maintained a top reputation with the "progressives". It'll be interesting to see if that reputation has been damaged by this.

If this thread is any indication, not much. That's not terribly surprising.
.

Not at all. She's officially achieved icon status!

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Blew what? She's been a notable joke for years.

I've always thought she was very good at what she does - presenting a biased, partisan version of the news - and she has certainly created and maintained a top reputation with the "progressives". It'll be interesting to see if that reputation has been damaged by this.

If this thread is any indication, not much. That's not terribly surprising.
.

What she did achieve was blowing any chance she had at being a reputable investigative journalist among the general public. I'm guessing she got a big ratings bump, she even got me to tune in, then she proceeded to shit all over herself.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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.

She's digging alright. Think she'll find her integrity? I'm doubtful.

 

[JBond]

Just like the lawyers at CBS approved the Dan Rather Bush National Guard Memo?

Nothing is illegal...lol..

He wants the headlines on this , just like it worked on Jeff Sessions and his lying wire tapping tweets..

I note your non-answer, you cheap, dime store hack.

Dude, go ahead and be led like a little puppy...eating up right out of Trumps hand that is feeding you..

It would be illegal if an IRS person leaked it..

Trump is the one would told everyone that he didn't pay taxes...

If there had been anything incriminating I would be agreeing with you...but Trump is lying his ass off right now..

Targeting taxpayers

Sure.....It is a good thing that you take her lightly.

No one, outside of looney feminists, and diehard leftists take her seriously. She is a caricature of everything that is wrong with the Democrat party.

Exactly what Trump wants , to discredit her.. She has been getting some very good stories out these last few weeks on connecting the Dots to Russia...

.

Maddow is an excellent researcher. This isn't over by a long shot....anyone who things it is, is a simpleton of the Drumpfster variety.

She didn't research crap. She was given two pages that make the Trump narratives by leftists, (he is broke/doesn't pay taxes) look completely foolish.

Trump is the one who said that he doesn't pay taxes...not Maddow or the lefts..

.

Wrong again. He pays no more than required by law. He went on to explain exactly what that means.

In the election cycle, idiotic leftists claimed raising money during a campaign proves he is broke. Leftists are kind of dumb.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

She didn't research crap. She was given two pages that make the Trump narratives by leftists, (he is broke/doesn't pay taxes) look completely foolish.

Unless Maddow knew the source of the information she was given was from someone prohibited by law to make that disclosure, there can be no finding of legal, criminal or civil, culpability by disclosing it.

Add the 1st amendment protections of the press, and even knowing the information was illegally obtained, Maddow has no legal exposure by making it public The ruling in the Pentagon Papers case against the New York Times, established the journalistic right to even publish classified government information, without facing legal consequences.

IF she solicited it SHE BROKE THE LAW. IF she did not, she didn't.

It's that simple.

 

[rich stacy]

You are only required to submit a financial disclosure which is 10 times more detailed than a tax return, and is available to THE PUBLIC..

Financial disclosure forms are notoriously brief and general. They are measured in pages, while Trumps tax returns are measured in reams. You may think you know what you're talking about, but you obviously don't. Do us both a favor and stick to actual facts.

 

[JBond]

She didn't research crap. She was given two pages that make the Trump narratives by leftists, (he is broke/doesn't pay taxes) look completely foolish.

Unless Maddow knew the source of the information she was given was from someone prohibited by law to make that disclosure, there can be no finding of legal, criminal or civil, culpability by disclosing it.

Add the 1st amendment protections of the press, and even knowing the information was illegally obtained, Maddow has no legal exposure by making it public The ruling in the Pentagon Papers case against the New York Times, established the journalistic right to even publish classified government information, without facing legal consequences.

And what is your point? I argued that she received them legally because Trump trolled her dumb ass.

 

[JBond]

She didn't research crap. She was given two pages that make the Trump narratives by leftists, (he is broke/doesn't pay taxes) look completely foolish.

Unless Maddow knew the source of the information she was given was from someone prohibited by law to make that disclosure, there can be no finding of legal, criminal or civil, culpability by disclosing it.

Add the 1st amendment protections of the press, and even knowing the information was illegally obtained, Maddow has no legal exposure by making it public The ruling in the Pentagon Papers case against the New York Times, established the journalistic right to even publish classified government information, without facing legal consequences.

IF she solicited it SHE BROKE THE LAW. IF she did not, she didn't.

It's that simple.

It was handed to her on a silver platter by a guy that has known Trump for years. I don't think she broke the law, but she did look like a kook.

 

[rich stacy]

Wrong again. He pays no more than required by law. He went on to explain exactly what that means.
.

it is every Americans right to pay the minimum tax that can be assessed to them, and to take advantage of every deduction and loophole in the tax code. But those actions do have political consequences,. When John Kerry registered his boat in Connecticut in order to save the taxes Massachusettes would have charged, he didn't face legal hurdles, but political one's instead.

Knowing a politician would 'game' the system, even if legal, may not sit well with the people he wants to vote for him, Many of which don't think it's fair that someone else gets to get away with loopholes they can't.