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

[The Sage of Main Street]

EVEN MAINSTREAM MEDIA FORCED TO ADMIT RACHEL MADDOW TRUMP TAX ‘SCOOP’ IS A BIG “NOTHINGBURGER”
MSNBC host left embarrassed by "scandal" that only helps Trump
Rachel Maddow’s bombshell revelation that Donald Trump paid $38 million in taxes on $150 million income failed so miserably that even the virulently anti-Trump mainstream media had to acknowledge it was a complete non-story.



Even Mainstream Media Forced to Admit Rachel Maddow Trump Tax ‘Scoop’ is a Big “Nothingburger”

=====================================================================
This is one of the dumbest cyka's on air. She is numerous for brainwashing the dumbed down public into thinking many sites are Conspiracy sites when this dumb ass gets it slapped right back at herself constantly you would think she'd learn her lesson by now to stop her lying bs.

Rachel Mad-D'oh!

That Lezzie Lizard should go back to eating flies.

 

[JBond]

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

And mad cow has been blindly supporting leftists forever. Based on your statement, what does that make her? In fact, it reflects poorly on all the leftists in the media that conspired with Hillary.

 

[oreo]

It is illegal to release someone's tax returns to the public without the taxpayer's consent.

26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information


See also Was it illegal to publish Trump’s tax returns without his consent?

Somebody broke the law. In addition, when Maddow and MSNBC had Trump's 2005 returns in their possession and then published them, THEY may have broken the law (there are First Amendment and public policy issues with the press, obviously). At the very least, they are publishing private documents that were illegally obtained. This is the height of sleaze.

Then, the return released shows that Trump pays quite a bit in income taxes, which does not even comport with the leftist narrative very well.

Somebody needs to sit that dude, Maddow, down and tell him that he is fucking up his career, even at a shit hole like MSNBC.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

It is a Felony to hack into private & public computers to get into people's emails also.

The PURPOSE of Presidential Candidates releasing their returns is NOT because everyone needs to know how much they make and what tax rate they paid, but it's to check for any FOREIGN CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. That could very well affect their decisions on National Security, and Foreign policy.

"Never in American history has a president-elect presented more conflict of interest questions and foreign entanglements than Donald Trump. Given the vast and global scope of Trump’s business interests, many of which remain shrouded in secrecy, we cannot predict the full gamut of legal and constitutional challenges that lie ahead. But one violation, of constitutional magnitude, will run from the instant that Mr. Trump swears he will “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” While holding office, Mr. Trump will receive—by virtue of his continued interest in the Trump Organization and his stake in hundreds of other entities—a steady stream of monetary and other benefits from foreign powers and their agents."
The Emoluments Clause: Its text, meaning, and application to Donald J. Trump | Brookings Institution

Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution provides as follows: “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

This is a reason for impeachment. If Republicans won't do it, be assured Democrats will in 2018. Democrats will obtain Trump's recent income tax returns (the full returns) when they take over the Ways & Means committee.

Speaking of Turkey, General Flynn just disclosed he's a paid lobbyist for them.
Questions abound over Flynn lobbying for Turkey

It just never stops does it?

Analysis | 5 times Donald Trump’s team denied contact with Russia

 

[Rambunctious]

Senators often have a lot of deductable expenses, especially if they have to maintain two residences

But Bernie Sanders is in favor of all of us paying more, shouldn't he lead by example? Or is he just another power mad money hungry bullshit artist?

 

[Care4all]

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

It's that simple.

Although a hard charge to prove, they could bring a criminal conspiracy charge in such a case. But, and I have to point this out, Donald Trump asked Vladimir Putin to hack into Clinton's server, and find the missing e-mails. Which are the same acts you merely speculated, what if's, with Maddow. Trump could be exposed to charges, of conspiracy and criminal solicitation.

Wrong. The emails had already been hacked. On top of that anyone with a brain knows Trump was being facetious

I was watching a Tim Kaine interview earlier this morning, and HE claimed Trump asked the Russians to hack the DNC.

(which made him a perfect running mate for Hillary)

Hack the DNC or ask for Russia to find the 30,000 private emails that Hillary did not turn over to the State Dept to archive in the govt records and release those to the media, who would pay very well to get them???

 

[rich stacy]

Wrong. The emails had already been hacked. On top of that anyone with a brain knows Trump was being facetious

That isn't a defense in a conspiracy charge. Oddly the imposibility of a crime is not a defense. As was shown on an episode of Law and Order, someone was charged with first degree murder for shooting a man in his bed while he was asleep. When an autopsy was performed, it was discovered the man had died of a heart attack hours earlier. So it was argued their client could not have commited murder.

That was true, so they got the grand jury to instead indict on attempted murder, which involves the intent, and not the actual commission of the crime.

If Trump solicited Putin to perform a criminal act, even if completed before the solicitation, unless Trump knew the e-mails had already been stolen, he faces criminal solicitation. And of course, if he knew the e-mails had already been stolen, he would face, criminal conspiracy.

 

[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

And mad cow has been blindly supporting leftists forever. Based on your statement, what does that make her? In fact, it reflects poorly on all the leftists in the media that conspired with Hillary.

Your support isn't excused by blaming someone else for what you are doing currently. Whataboutism doesn't work here.

 

[Rob37]

That's the way it goes. If he dangled some cheese and Maddow bit, that's her own fault.

That's what happens when hardcore partisan ideology overcomes rational thought.
.

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.

Maddow goes on these LOOOOONNNNGGGGG monologues spitting out cynical nothingness. Last night she went on and on and on about foreign influence and whether Trump has foreign generated income on his tax return, and on and on and on.... all of which had nothing to do with the actual disclosures made in his return.

But it did not matter. The facts do not matter. She just plants that seed and keeps watering it, over and over and over hoping something grows.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[AntonToo]

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.

Bingo - Trumpsters are total morons unable to help themselves to non-idiotic arguments, they prove that everyday.

 

[rich stacy]

By loophole, you mean tax law. Those laws apply to all of us. Still not sure what your point is. People voted for him, and Kerry, and all the others. Few care. .

Enough cared that John Kerry paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to register his boat, or better discribed as a yacht, to the state of Massachusettes. As for Trump, it is only speculation how people felt about his tax deductions, because Trump promised, and then reversed him self on the release of his tax returns. So nobody knows how people would have felt, had they known.

 

[Rob37]

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

How exactly is MSNBC corrupt? Does he sexual preference have anything to do with her on air performance?

I explained why they are corrupt, you illiterate fuck. Go back and reflect on my post.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

It is illegal to release someone's tax returns to the public without the taxpayer's consent.

26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information


See also Was it illegal to publish Trump’s tax returns without his consent?

Somebody broke the law. In addition, when Maddow and MSNBC had Trump's 2005 returns in their possession and then published them, THEY may have broken the law (there are First Amendment and public policy issues with the press, obviously). At the very least, they are publishing private documents that were illegally obtained. This is the height of sleaze.

Then, the return released shows that Trump pays quite a bit in income taxes, which does not even comport with the leftist narrative very well.

Somebody needs to sit that dude, Maddow, down and tell him that he is fucking up his career, even at a shit hole like MSNBC.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Dominatrix or Treats

That Dyke on a Mike will have a session with Sessions, then put in a cell with Big Bertha and her whips and chains.

 

[JBond]

It is illegal to release someone's tax returns to the public without the taxpayer's consent.

26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information


See also Was it illegal to publish Trump’s tax returns without his consent?

Somebody broke the law. In addition, when Maddow and MSNBC had Trump's 2005 returns in their possession and then published them, THEY may have broken the law (there are First Amendment and public policy issues with the press, obviously). At the very least, they are publishing private documents that were illegally obtained. This is the height of sleaze.

Then, the return released shows that Trump pays quite a bit in income taxes, which does not even comport with the leftist narrative very well.

Somebody needs to sit that dude, Maddow, down and tell him that he is fucking up his career, even at a shit hole like MSNBC.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

It is a Felony to hack into private & public computers to get into people's emails also.

The PURPOSE of Presidential Candidates releasing their returns is NOT because everyone needs to know how much they make and what tax rate they paid, but it's to check for any FOREIGN CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. That could very well affect their decisions on National Security, and Foreign policy.

"Never in American history has a president-elect presented more conflict of interest questions and foreign entanglements than Donald Trump. Given the vast and global scope of Trump’s business interests, many of which remain shrouded in secrecy, we cannot predict the full gamut of legal and constitutional challenges that lie ahead. But one violation, of constitutional magnitude, will run from the instant that Mr. Trump swears he will “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” While holding office, Mr. Trump will receive—by virtue of his continued interest in the Trump Organization and his stake in hundreds of other entities—a steady stream of monetary and other benefits from foreign powers and their agents."
The Emoluments Clause: Its text, meaning, and application to Donald J. Trump | Brookings Institution

Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution provides as follows: “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

This is a reason for impeachment. If Republicans won't do it, be assured Democrats will in 2018. Democrats will obtain Trump's recent income tax returns (the full returns) when they take over the Ways & Means committee.

Speaking of Turkey, General Flynn just disclosed he's a paid lobbyist for them.
Questions abound over Flynn lobbying for Turkey

It just never stops does it?

Analysis | 5 times Donald Trump’s team denied contact with Russia

So when are the Muslim hackers democrats hired to run their IT systems going to be charged?

 

[miketx]

Look at all the liberals cheering on a criminal. The fail of that should enough to implode the sun.

 

[Rob37]

Both are illegal, one merely in the possession, the other to disseminate without the permission of the owner. Once they decided to release the information, they became part of the chain of release outside the limits imposed by the owner of said returns.

If the Tax returns actually showed something illegal, that would maybe give Maddow more of a shield from prosecution under the law, but the return shows nothing of the sort. How can she claim her actions were in the public interest when they show nothing but he paid taxes that year?

No. You are arguing against a law. Do you understand that? Have you taken the time to look up the law the entire time you have been arguing with me? Journalists do not have to follow the same rules that you and I do. They did not solicit the information in the same way Gawker pays for information and therefor are protected differently than the situation Gawker was. What they did was not illegal.

The New York Times reported on Trump's 1995 tax returns a long time ago... this is nothing new.

Who gave Trump’s taxes to the New York Times? The mystery behind a bombshell story.

They still have to follow basic rules, and if the law explicitly protects private citizen's tax returns, (as Trump was back in 2005) any shield they are claiming isn't exactly made of adamantium.

You do realize that your sides's obsession with Trumps tax return is far more exemplified by your meme response, right?

If by side you mean "Anti-Trump" people... I want to see his latest couple year's tax returns to see where his conflicts of interests lie. It's pretty simple, and if he had to apply for a security clearance it would have been reviewed. Though he doesn't have to get a security clearance as an elected POTUS, I'd still like to see it for myself, and a great deal of the population would like to see it as well. His tax returns would also prove once and for all how big of a liar he is when it comes to how charitable he is, which could absolutely ruin him with the public. No one likes a braggart that talks about how much they give in donations only to find out they don't give shit.

You don't need to see anybody's tax returns, motherfucker. You would not understand them anyway. It is not like there is going to be a 1099 from Russia attached to it, dumbass!

 

[Auld Phart]

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

It's that simple.

Although a hard charge to prove, they could bring a criminal conspiracy charge in such a case. But, and I have to point this out, Donald Trump asked Vladimir Putin to hack into Clinton's server, and find the missing e-mails. Which are the same acts you merely speculated, what if's, with Maddow. Trump could be exposed to charges, of conspiracy and criminal solicitation.

Wrong. The emails had already been hacked. On top of that anyone with a brain knows Trump was being facetious

I was watching a Tim Kaine interview earlier this morning, and HE claimed Trump asked the Russians to hack the DNC.

(which made him a perfect running mate for Hillary)

Hack the DNC or ask for Russia to find the 30,000 private emails that Hillary did not turn over to the State Dept to archive in the govt records and release those to the media, who would pay very well to get them???

Hllary claimed those emails were 'lost', and Trump said :

 

[Rob37]

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.

Can we sue her for being a gross dyke?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The probable fact is, since the returns are marked 'customer copy', that Trump was flushed into the open by Maddow, so he released them to forestall the impact of the show. If that was Trump's intent, he failed.

Trump is the most divisive president in American history.

 

[Iceweasel]

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

.

When did he say that?

 

[miketx]

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.

Can we sue her for being a gross dyke?

I don't think being an ugly lesbian is a tort.