• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The NYT Publication of Leaked Personal Tax Records

The NYT story doesn't surprise me in the least. I'd have more confidence in the reporting if the NYT didn't have a track record of shoddy attempts to torpedo candidates they don't like with half-checked allegations. Case in point? The NYT's execrable last-minute "other woman" falsehood about John McCain on the eve of the 2008 election.
 
The Times has put itself in an interesting position here. They have presented these records as if they are fact but then refuse to release the records in support of that claim.

your first rodeo?
 
your first rodeo?
No. Not by a long shot.

Here's what I think. I think the NY Times wrote a total bullshit story based on hearsay and interviews with people that hate Trump. I don't think they have any actual tax returns at all. I also think that their entire purpose for writing the story was to assist Joe Bidden who, as is showed day after day, is hardly able to help himself. They are betting that their propaganda will piss Trump off to such an extent that he releases his own returns...and the useful idiots of the left are fully on board to aid and abet that scheme.
 
Here's what I think. I think the NY Times wrote a total bullshit story based on hearsay and interviews with people that hate Trump.

so. it is your first rodeo.
 
We all know the financial geniuses here in this thread didn't take a Coronavirus hit in the businesses they owned, did they? Hah! What a spit bucket of whiners.
 
so. it is your first rodeo.
Right...I kind of figured you'd run out of ammo.

The Times says that they have "return information". That doesn't exactly mean that they have the returns so there is a good bet that they CAN'T release the supporting documentation. What they may have is an interview with one or more people that either have access to Trump's returns or whom the Times believes has such access. My guess is that this entire report was put together based on second and third hand information that the Times never vetted and the reason they are "protecting their source" is that there is no tangible evidence behind this accusation whatsoever.
 
Right...I kind of figured you'd run out of ammo.

The Times says that they have "return information". That doesn't exactly mean that they have the returns so there is a good bet that they CAN'T release the supporting documentation. What they may have is an interview with one or more people that either have access to Trump's returns or whom the Times believes has such access. My guess is that this entire report was put together based on second and third hand information that the Times never vetted and the reason they are "protecting their source" is that there is no tangible evidence behind this accusation whatsoever.

it's obvious you don't know how this stuff works.

let me guess, you're in your early 30s.
 
Right...I kind of figured you'd run out of ammo.

The Times says that they have "return information". That doesn't exactly mean that they have the returns so there is a good bet that they CAN'T release the supporting documentation. What they may have is an interview with one or more people that either have access to Trump's returns or whom the Times believes has such access. My guess is that this entire report was put together based on second and third hand information that the Times never vetted and the reason they are "protecting their source" is that there is no tangible evidence behind this accusation whatsoever.
It probably came from his disgraced attorney, Michael Cohen while he is milking his house arrest.
 
It probably came from his disgraced attorney, Michael Cohen while he is milking his house arrest.
I hear all this crazy speculation about Trump all the time. Do you ever speculate about anyone else? Do you speculate about Biden? Biden released his 2019 returns today. They show a little over $500k wage income. A little over $300k of that was from CelticCapri Corp and Giacoppa Corp. Those two corporations Subchapter S corporations that the Bidens own. The Bidens receive both a salary and "pass through" earnings from those corporations. Nearly 2/3 of the income on their return is attributable to these two corporations yet we know NOTHING about them. It's possible that those two corporations had TRILLIONS of dollars of foreign income and have TRILLIONS of dollars in debt payable to foreign entities and individuals but we'll never know unless Joe releases those returns too.

Are you curious about any of that? Do you want the Times to get the tax returns for CelticCapri Corp.? Either those corporations didn't exist in 2016 or the Bidens didn't have any earnings or losses from them in that year. In 2017 the corporations passed more than $10M to the Bidens. Does that strike you as being even a little weird? Joe goes from being VP in 2016 and making just under $400k in wages and investments to being a corporate owner and making $11M. He made $3M from the corporations in 2018 and now they are paying him a meager $500k. Does any of that strike you as being weird and worth looking in to?
 
I hear all this crazy speculation about Trump all the time. Do you ever speculate about anyone else? Do you speculate about Biden? Biden released his 2019 returns today. They show a little over $500k wage income. A little over $300k of that was from CelticCapri Corp and Giacoppa Corp. Those two corporations Subchapter S corporations that the Bidens own. The Bidens receive both a salary and "pass through" earnings from those corporations. Nearly 2/3 of the income on their return is attributable to these two corporations yet we know NOTHING about them. It's possible that those two corporations had TRILLIONS of dollars of foreign income and have TRILLIONS of dollars in debt payable to foreign entities and individuals but we'll never know unless Joe releases those returns too.

Are you curious about any of that? Do you want the Times to get the tax returns for CelticCapri Corp.? Either those corporations didn't exist in 2016 or the Bidens didn't have any earnings or losses from them in that year. In 2017 the corporations passed more than $10M to the Bidens. Does that strike you as being even a little weird? Joe goes from being VP in 2016 and making just under $400k in wages and investments to being a corporate owner and making $11M. He made $3M from the corporations in 2018 and now they are paying him a meager $500k. Does any of that strike you as being weird and worth looking in to?


Where is the income the Bidens received from book and speaking engagements?
 
Where is the income the Bidens received from book and speaking engagements?
Probably in one or both of the corporations.

He did donate $1M in 2017 and it looks like he's got his "social justice" bone fides because of that. He gave $100 to the Delaware Association of Police and $120,000 to the Delaware Center for Justice which specializes in making the lives of criminals easier.
 
You
Yep...

Jack White of the Providence Journal-Bulletin got a copy of Nixon's tax returns in 1973. He wrote the story and when asked about the story Nixon responded with this famous line, "People have got to know whether or not their president is a crook. Well, I am not a crook."

PS... The story was that Nixon only paid $792.81 in federal taxes in 1970. That's $42.81 more than Donald Trump paid in 2016 and 2017.

Jack White was awarded the Pulitzer Prize in 1974 for the reporting and never revealed his sources.

Jack White (reporter) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
you guys are acting like this is the magic elixir that will make Joe 70 again! LOL
 
He has nothing to gain from that. Instead he can play the victim and bash the media. These kinds of attacks have so far backfired against him.
The thing is, when it comes to his campaign, Trump's taxes don't mean much anymore except to confirm people's biases. That's for the election. What matters is that the stories will cause finanical insitutions to look at any future requests for loans, and various AG's to take a closer look for tax fraud. You can be sure banks will be triple careful in lending ot him, since he will be a bad risk. And, if these tax returns are true, his biggest fear of a huge tax bill, and fraud investigation will happen.
 
Jack White won a Pulitzer Prize for reporting on Nixon's tax returns... The NYT doesn't have to disclose squat...


The New York Times won a Pulitzer Prize for covering up genocide in the Ukraine by Stalin. Is that supposed to be some kind of compliment?
 
Yes. The situation was a little bit different. The story about Nixon's "charitable donation" was pretty well known and had been in the press for months before White published his piece. The initial disclosure was through a civil suit related to the Watergate case. Basically, White's source dropped paperwork that confirmed what everyone had already figured out through public records and an interview with Nixon's tax attorney.

The White case was "news" because it confirmed information already in the public realm and merely substantiated claims that had already been made. In this case it isn't "news" because the ONLY matter it pertains to is the political decision Trump made to keep his returns private.
Most of the elements of this story has been in the media for at least months, if not years. Heck the only things not reported on before were his debts coming due (which were speculated on) and paying only $750 in taxes in 2016. Everything else has had stories on it, including undervaluing his properties for tax purposes but overvaluing for loans and ego.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
Is it ethical?
Is it legal?

Certainly its biased. I dont think anyone can seriously challenge the idea that The NYT supports liberalism and is using the paper to influence the election. I think its also unethical. Just read the SPJ code of ethics and you can see many of their codes violated.


Legality is a gray area. The press is certainly free, but people also have a right to privacy. Private citizens, much less public officials have very little ability to fight people who buy ink by the barrel. I wouldnt put it past the NYT to encourage leaking of private information, but theres no evidence of it. The NYT wont provide the leaked documents to protect their sources. So their covering up a criminal act at the least, to further their own political goals. Then publishing private information in order to harm the reputation of a person who has a right to private person is likely slander, but again, the press is free. So, I dont know. Its unlikely anyone will be punished for this, and if Trump wins, it wont have mattered. Even if he loses, hes still rich and powerful, more than the NYT.
Waaaaaaa Boo Hoo. Russia if you're listening. China should start an investigation into biden. Forget these things? Rich and powerful, you sound jealous.
 
Is it ethical?
Is it legal?

Certainly its biased. I dont think anyone can seriously challenge the idea that The NYT supports liberalism and is using the paper to influence the election. I think its also unethical. Just read the SPJ code of ethics and you can see many of their codes violated.


Legality is a gray area. The press is certainly free, but people also have a right to privacy. Private citizens, much less public officials have very little ability to fight people who buy ink by the barrel. I wouldnt put it past the NYT to encourage leaking of private information, but theres no evidence of it. The NYT wont provide the leaked documents to protect their sources. So their covering up a criminal act at the least, to further their own political goals. Then publishing private information in order to harm the reputation of a person who has a right to private person is likely slander, but again, the press is free. So, I dont know. Its unlikely anyone will be punished for this, and if Trump wins, it wont have mattered. Even if he loses, hes still rich and powerful, more than the NYT.
If the NYT is trying to influence the election, what is Faux News trying to do? It's a dog eat dog world out there. What comes around goes around. If you don't like their publication, stop reading it.
 
If the NYT is trying to influence the election, what is Faux News trying to do? It's a dog eat dog world out there. What comes around goes around. If you don't like their publication, stop reading it.
Right, so you dont care about privacy.
 
Nobody seems concerned about the media acquiring personal tax returns and publishing them, for political gain.

So what would it take? Leaked medical records? Details about someones children? Intimate details about someones love life with their wife/husband? Wheres your line where the right to privacy trumps the right of the free press? And since when does the freedom of the press extend to harming citizens? The first amendment is to keep govt from interfering with the press, not to allow the press total freedom from society. There should be civil penalities here at the very least as happened with Sandman.
 
Back
Top Bottom