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

[bodecea]

I guess Maddow had to air the two whole pages of 2005 tax returns so she could find out what was in them. She is looking very much the fool today and that is no ones fault but hers.

What we see is the Trump puppets following their talking points today.

 

[kiwiman127]

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

Cry me a fucking river. You loser Trumpsters creamed in your panties, every single time the DNC, Clinton, Pedesta or anyone else Dem was hacked by your allies.
What pussies!

 

[JimBowie1958]

that's so shallow....2005 taxs, whoop dee do, only 2 front pages....a year trump actually paid taxes....WHO CARES about that, but Trump?
we want to see his last 5 to 10 years, IN FULL, like we have on the Clintons!
We want to know his Foreign nation connections

But the scoop! This is groundbreaking earth shattering news; TRUMP PAYS MORE TAXES PERCENTAGE THAN MSNBC!

 

[Kosh]

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

Cry me a fucking river. You loser Trumpsters creamed in your panties, every single time the DNC, Clinton, Pedesta or anyone else Dem was hacked by your allies.
What pussies!

The irony of those comments from a far left drone!

 

[saveliberty]

#1. Did you even watch the show? They reached out to the White House and verified the taxes were real before they reported it. In fact the White House reported what was in it before Maddow reported it on air. Again you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.
It was a smear piece that failed. No real attempt at journalism.

#2. I said some people on this forum are saying that taxes are classified information, you didn't agree that they aren't instead you gave an explanation that pointed towards them being classified.
Legally protected is not classified. You made that error, not me. I pointed that out and you made the error again.

#3. I shouldn't have to be specific because it has been talked about over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over what special rights journalists get, and it has NOTHING to do with torture or any of the other crap you listed... and you know that which is dishonest of YOU.
I was making you be more specific. You did that.

#4. Provide a link to what? It's a fact. How about you provide a link showing a President has to pass a background check for a security clearance?
Most presidents do pass security checks at some point in their careers.

#5. Wrong. I'm saying what OTHER people are saying. These aren't my words to describe her or her actions. Are you that fucking retarded or trying to be dishonest on purpose? She was not trying to be a spy... she was reporting information provided to her. Like it or not, when you become POTUS you become a public figure and therefor are put into a position of being under a microscope to the public. It's why some very qualified people never run for POTUS. They don't want the hassle of it.
Maddow has been on a Trump campaign of smear for months already. As in a typical spy movie, did a double agent pass along bad information? Seems to be the story now.

Blue again

 

[blackhawk]

I guess Maddow had to air the two whole pages of 2005 tax returns so she could find out what was in them. She is looking very much the fool today and that is no ones fault but hers.

What we see is the Trump puppets following their talking points today.

What we are seeing is the looney left trying everything they can to avoid dealing with last nights epic tax story failure.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Cry me a fucking river. You loser Trumpsters creamed in your panties, every single time the DNC, Clinton, Pedesta or anyone else Dem was hacked by your allies.
What pussies!

 

[Lewdog]

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.

We want to see your medical records to see if you are mentally fit to post on USMB.

We have a Constitutional Right to Privacy. The President filed a financial disclosure and also went through Security Vetting to get his security clearance.

Not only that, The Obama Administration had him under surveillance, ILLEGALLY, and use UK Intelligence Services tapping in to a couple of rogue agents, and FOUND NOTHING. NOTHING.

So if the CIA, NSA, Secret Service, and 17 Intelligence agencies all gave Trump clearance for his security credentials, and you have his tax returns, was wire tapping Trump Tower and had a Financial Disclosure and nothing was found, Including THE IRS btw, who would have poured over about 20 years of tax returns.....

EXACTLY WHAT THE PHUCK DO YOU NEED TO SEE IT FOR?

SO YOU CAN CREATE SOME MORE FAKE NEWS and MAKE MORE NONSENSICAL UNSUBSTANTIATED ACCUSATIONS?

I say PHUCK OFF LEFTY.

America is already sick of your shit anyways.

Presidents don't have to get a security clearance... If he had to he'd not pass simply because of his multiple bankruptcies and poor credit score. But hey...you think you know what you are talking about.

You poor poor thing... you probably where headphones that have to remind you when to breath, you're that dense.

You are a moron. They have to go through a process. Every president does. They do not hand stuff to POTUS on day one.
Obama had to go through it.

Wrong again Amigo. Presidents do not go through background checks in order to be approved for a Security Clearance like a normal person would have to. You should really do some research before just spouting off at the mouth.

Sweet baby Jesus--Trump got a pass on EVERYTHING. And Yes Presidents do have to get security clearance to get into intelligence briefings. But the point it's not a fucking credit score, how much they earned, bankruptcies or how much they paid in taxes. That has NOTHING to do with a security clearance. And that is why Racheal Maddow's release of a 2005 1040 2 page form is absolutely WORTHLESS. It's 12 years old and it did not include the K-1 form that would show foreign investments.

The ENTIRE point of releasing income tax returns is to look for FOREIGN CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. Hillary Clinton explained this during one of the debates with Trump. We cannot have Presidents that can be easily influenced by foreign countries, held hostage by foreign countries because they have assets in those countries, which is the entire point of Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution.

"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


I think a new campaign theme for this country should be: "Make America SMART again."

This is straight from the FBI's web page:


"What kind of inquiries will the FBI make into my background?

Credit and criminal history checks will be conducted on all applicants. For a Top Secret security clearance, the background investigation includes additional record checks which can verify citizenship for the applicant and family members, verification of birth, education, employment history, and military history. Additionally, interviews will be conducted of persons who know the candidate, and of any spouse divorced within the past ten years. Additional interviews will be conducted, as needed, to resolve any inconsistencies. Residences will be confirmed, neighbors interviewed, and public records queried for information about bankruptcies, divorces, and criminal or civil litigation. The background investigation may be expanded if an applicant has resided abroad, or has a history of mental disorders, or drug or alcohol abuse. A personal interview will be conducted of the candidate.

If I have a poor credit history or other issues in my background, will this prevent me from getting a security clearance?

A poor credit history, or other issues, will not necessarily disqualify a candidate from receiving a clearance, but resolution of the issues will likely take additional time. If the issues are significant, they may prevent a clearance from being approved."

Security Clearances for Law Enforcement — FBI

How many times has Trump been sued for unpaid work? Four bankruptcies? There is no way on God's green Earth he would ever pass a background check for Top Secret Security clearance...

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Jake, the more you post on this topic, the more idiotic you look. I would highly recommend that you take a break from the board for a few days and come back when your head clears.

I realize they have to defend her, but sheesh.
.

I know, they look stupid doing so.

When you look at the way Maddow went about this, she failed from the very start.

Here's her original tweet, and pay attention to the way she worded it.



Rachel Maddow MSNBC‏ @maddow
BREAKING: We've got Trump tax returns. Tonight, 9pm ET. MSNBC. (Seriously)

When she say's "we've got Trump tax returns" most people are thinking of the "current" returns.

Now she does try to disguise it a bit by saying "Trump tax returns" instead of "Trump's tax returns", but still I'll guarantee you most people are thinking of the katest returns.

So from the start she not only disappoints with the fact that this was an old tax return, but of course the content blows up in her face with the fact that Trump paid millions in taxes.

Imagine her leftist audience ready to pop champagne corks in anticipation of some really damaging news for Trump, but instead the return makes Trump look like a patriotic tax paying American.

She handled this so poorly that you have to wonder what happened.

Maybe her staff told her they found something damaging, or maybe she just ASSUMED they would.

This was just brutal.
.

Yes, and I would have loved to have been in the room after the show when it finally dawned on Maddow and her staff that they looked more like a FOX NEWS show that an anti-Trump show.
Hopefully someone removed all the loose objects from the room.

Y'know, I've seen this debacle compared to Geraldo Rivera's Al Capone Vault fiasco, but there's big difference:

Rivera didn't know the vault was empty until they broke it open; Maddow HAD THE TAX FORMS.
.

BWAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA !!

SO TRUE !!!

 

[JimBowie1958]

Makes you wonder why the leftists are so comfortable stretching the facts to fit their narrative, no?

 

[Lewdog]

#1. Did you even watch the show? They reached out to the White House and verified the taxes were real before they reported it. In fact the White House reported what was in it before Maddow reported it on air. Again you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.
It was a smear piece that failed. No real attempt at journalism.

#2. I said some people on this forum are saying that taxes are classified information, you didn't agree that they aren't instead you gave an explanation that pointed towards them being classified.
Legally protected is not classified. You made that error, not me. I pointed that out and you made the error again.

#3. I shouldn't have to be specific because it has been talked about over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over what special rights journalists get, and it has NOTHING to do with torture or any of the other crap you listed... and you know that which is dishonest of YOU.
I was making you be more specific. You did that.

#4. Provide a link to what? It's a fact. How about you provide a link showing a President has to pass a background check for a security clearance?
Most presidents do pass security checks at some point in their careers.

#5. Wrong. I'm saying what OTHER people are saying. These aren't my words to describe her or her actions. Are you that fucking retarded or trying to be dishonest on purpose? She was not trying to be a spy... she was reporting information provided to her. Like it or not, when you become POTUS you become a public figure and therefor are put into a position of being under a microscope to the public. It's why some very qualified people never run for POTUS. They don't want the hassle of it.
Maddow has been on a Trump campaign of smear for months already. As in a typical spy movie, did a double agent pass along bad information? Seems to be the story now.

Blue again

No, again you aren't bright enough to understand that I am repeating other people's statements, and they aren't mine.

Elected officials do not have to pass background checks to get their security clearance. Fact.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

I guess Maddow had to air the two whole pages of 2005 tax returns so she could find out what was in them. She is looking very much the fool today and that is no ones fault but hers.

What we see is the Trump puppets following their talking points today.

Not hard to see the fail here, and it's fucking hillarious !!

 

[Rob37]

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

Cry me a fucking river. You loser Trumpsters creamed in your panties, every single time the DNC, Clinton, Pedesta or anyone else Dem was hacked by your allies.
What pussies!

Jealous? You clearly have nothing to excited about in Trump's return. Asshole! Lol!

 

[saveliberty]

#1. Did you even watch the show? They reached out to the White House and verified the taxes were real before they reported it. In fact the White House reported what was in it before Maddow reported it on air. Again you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.
It was a smear piece that failed. No real attempt at journalism.

#2. I said some people on this forum are saying that taxes are classified information, you didn't agree that they aren't instead you gave an explanation that pointed towards them being classified.
Legally protected is not classified. You made that error, not me. I pointed that out and you made the error again.

#3. I shouldn't have to be specific because it has been talked about over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over what special rights journalists get, and it has NOTHING to do with torture or any of the other crap you listed... and you know that which is dishonest of YOU.
I was making you be more specific. You did that.

#4. Provide a link to what? It's a fact. How about you provide a link showing a President has to pass a background check for a security clearance?
Most presidents do pass security checks at some point in their careers.

#5. Wrong. I'm saying what OTHER people are saying. These aren't my words to describe her or her actions. Are you that fucking retarded or trying to be dishonest on purpose? She was not trying to be a spy... she was reporting information provided to her. Like it or not, when you become POTUS you become a public figure and therefor are put into a position of being under a microscope to the public. It's why some very qualified people never run for POTUS. They don't want the hassle of it.
Maddow has been on a Trump campaign of smear for months already. As in a typical spy movie, did a double agent pass along bad information? Seems to be the story now.

Blue again

No, again you aren't bright enough to understand that I am repeating other people's statements, and they aren't mine.

Elected officials do not have to pass background checks to get their security clearance. Fact.

Really? Could have sworn I was replying to your posts....

 

[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

Cry me a fucking river. You loser Trumpsters creamed in your panties, every single time the DNC, Clinton, Pedesta or anyone else Dem was hacked by your allies.
What pussies!

Why won't your fellow pussy hats turn over the servers to the FBI. Why did they refuse to cooperate? Silly pussy hat snowflakes. Always good for a laugh.

 

[Lewdog]

#1. Did you even watch the show? They reached out to the White House and verified the taxes were real before they reported it. In fact the White House reported what was in it before Maddow reported it on air. Again you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.
It was a smear piece that failed. No real attempt at journalism.

#2. I said some people on this forum are saying that taxes are classified information, you didn't agree that they aren't instead you gave an explanation that pointed towards them being classified.
Legally protected is not classified. You made that error, not me. I pointed that out and you made the error again.

#3. I shouldn't have to be specific because it has been talked about over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over what special rights journalists get, and it has NOTHING to do with torture or any of the other crap you listed... and you know that which is dishonest of YOU.
I was making you be more specific. You did that.

#4. Provide a link to what? It's a fact. How about you provide a link showing a President has to pass a background check for a security clearance?
Most presidents do pass security checks at some point in their careers.

#5. Wrong. I'm saying what OTHER people are saying. These aren't my words to describe her or her actions. Are you that fucking retarded or trying to be dishonest on purpose? She was not trying to be a spy... she was reporting information provided to her. Like it or not, when you become POTUS you become a public figure and therefor are put into a position of being under a microscope to the public. It's why some very qualified people never run for POTUS. They don't want the hassle of it.
Maddow has been on a Trump campaign of smear for months already. As in a typical spy movie, did a double agent pass along bad information? Seems to be the story now.

Blue again

No, again you aren't bright enough to understand that I am repeating other people's statements, and they aren't mine.

Elected officials do not have to pass background checks to get their security clearance. Fact.

Really? Could have sworn I was replying to your posts....

I clearly stated from the very begining I was quoting misconceptions being posted by Trumpbots on the forum.

 

[mattyp]

Well, here it is. This bitch thinks she has all the power now.
These returns do not show anything out of the ordinary. Nor do they show anything about Russian interferrance in the election. He actually paid a higher tax than Bernie sanders. But Rachel wont tell you that. I bet she also wouldn't tell you that she broke the law by releasing the returns to the public. Which just solidifies the fact that the only ones still interested in his returns is the media.

 

[paperview]

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

.

When did he say that?

Here is a video...
Trump says he used $916M loss to avoid federal taxes - CNN Video

Trump admits to losing $916M to duck paying federal taxes

Which of course is totally legal. In fact hillary used the exact same deduction when she lost money.

No, she didn't.

Ya can lead a moron to knowledge but you cant make em think.....
Google

Backatacha, Lester.

You should try reviewing your own link.

No, Clinton did not use "the exact same deduction" when she lost money, as you claimed.

A deduction of 3,000.00 for a Capital Gains loss

IS NOT the same as Trump's near a billion Net Operating Loss.


Do you know the difference, or are you just a moron?

 

[Snouter]

Fake News BLINKY got pwnd by Rush already today and will get pwnd again by Hannity in an hour!

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

When did he say that?

Here is a video...
Trump says he used $916M loss to avoid federal taxes - CNN Video

Trump admits to losing $916M to duck paying federal taxes

Which of course is totally legal. In fact hillary used the exact same deduction when she lost money.

No, she didn't.

Ya can lead a moron to knowledge but you cant make em think.....
Google

Backatacha, Lester.

You should try reviewing your own link.

No, Clinton did not use the exact same deduction when she lost money, as you claimed.

A deduction of 3,000.00 for a Capital Gains loss

IS NOT the same as Trump's near a billion "net operating loss"


Do you know the difference, or are you just a moron?

Nice cherry pick.
Did you happen to notice that most say she did?
.....of course not.