Re: Trump Tax Records Obtained by The Times Reveal He Could Have Avoided Paying Taxes
SCOTUS and 9th circuit court > than your legal experts.
you are trying to say that your experts know more than rulings.
I find it funny that you can't address the actual arguments and your entire
argument is the SCOTUS and the 9th circuit court is wrong and even the lawyers for the NYT is wrong,
but my 10 experts are right LOL.
So you can't actually debate the topic instead you cite sources that evidently like you haven't studied this very well.
that or their knowledge is outdated.
Your SC case involved an ambiguous footnote that merely suggested a conclusion is still open. I'll quote YOU on this case:
In the star case the SCOTUS left open the fact that paper obtained illegally and published not only could the person that delivered them be held accountable but the paper
that published them.
So you're citing a case that by your own account didn't even come to a conclusion on the issue at hand here - at best the court said, "We don't know and so make no finding" which you mistake for "We DO know and will rule this way in the future." It's bizarre, really.
And the experts I cited referred to actual SC cases where the court explicitly ruled that press was NOT liable, EVEN IF the information they published was obtained illegally - the experts specifically referred to the Pentagon Papers
case and
Bartnicki, and in both those cases the SC held that the press had a protected right to publish info even if it was obtained illegally by the original source, who then forwarded it to the press. So your cite refers to a footnote that leaves a question "open" and ignored clear precedent of cases directly on point or at least substantially on point.
The 9th circuit opinion involved someone NOT the press and whether someone NOT the press who received a recording that he knew was obtained illegally was liable for forwarding that to the press. That case also extensively cites Bartnicki, link above, that refused to hold the press liable for broadcasting an illegally obtained voice recording. And the 9th circuit distinguishes the facts in McDermott with those in Bartnicki:
Because there was no genuine dispute that Representative McDermott knew the Martins had illegally intercepted the conversation, he did not lawfully obtain the tape from them. The Martins violated § 2511 not once, but twice-first when they intercepted the call and second when they disclosed it to Representative McDermott. It is of little moment whether Representative McDermott's complicity constituted aiding and abetting their criminal act,5 or the formation of a conspiracy with them, or amounted to participating in an illegal transaction.6 The difference between this case and Bartnicki is plain to see.7 It is the difference between someone who discovers a bag containing a diamond ring on the sidewalk and someone who accepts the same bag from a thief, knowing the ring inside to have been stolen. The former has committed no offense; the latter is guilty of receiving stolen property, even if the ring was intended only as a gift.8
In this case, the NYT asserts, and we have no information to the contrary, that they opened their mail and found the tax documents. That is CLEARLY consistent with the facts outlined right there in what I quoted and in that case the SC said that press could absolutely publish information obtained through an anonymous source, even if the person who originally intercepted the call did so illegally.
So, yeah, I can debate the topic. And the experts I referenced already went over nearly all this ground but you ignored it because you disregard people who ARE experts while pretending your own ignorant understanding of the topic can be substituted for that of someone who has spent a career studying this stuff.
