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

[Lewdog]

SHE BROKE NO LAWS! WHY ARE YOU STILL ARGUING THIS?

Oh she did break a law, the question is, was it covered by journalistic protection? Since there was no law broken, no cover up or compelling reason to disclose that return, I'd say she gets a day on court.

No, she didn't break the law. For ****'s sake you Trumpbots kill me.

 

[rich stacy]

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

Or any bank Trump sought a loan from.

 

[Auld Phart]

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.

Have you been watching her Trumps Russian connection series these last few weeks? I am sure Trump has been too...
lol...

Did she cover the time he used Russian Dressing on his salad?

Or is she saving that for the BIG expose'?

 

[Eaglewings]

This coming from someone who probably waited, dick in hand, for Maddow to release whatever information she had?

LOLOLOLOLOL.

Hummmm... Yeah this is why Fox News has these fake blondes with big boobs...so the male viewers don't pay attention to their lies and 1/2 truths..

 

[vlad_hombre]

Regardless of which end of the spectrum you occupy, it really is okay to lower your fists now and then and admit a screwup, or a weakness, or anything negative.

Left wing Slate does it here: Rachel Maddow Turned a Scoop on Donald Trump’s Taxes Into a Cynical, Self-Defeating Spectacle

Are there any Progressives who think this big tax revelation didn't go very well? That it may have actually helped Trump and the GOP?
.

I have no problem characterizing this as a huge fail.

This was obviously a cherry-picked return designed to cast the most favorable light possible.

Maddow should've give it the two minute dismissal at the very end of her show it deserves.

 

[Mac1958]

Regardless of which end of the spectrum you occupy, it really is okay to lower your fists now and then and admit a screwup, or a weakness, or anything negative.

Left wing Slate does it here: Rachel Maddow Turned a Scoop on Donald Trump’s Taxes Into a Cynical, Self-Defeating Spectacle

Are there any Progressives who think this big tax revelation didn't go very well? That it may have actually helped Trump and the GOP?
.

Or the release of his '05 1040 by Trump before the MSNBC Broadcast may have been a tactic to get Trump to distance himself from the health care fiasco & Russian, et al connections in the making. Keep in mind, the copy has "Client Copy" stamped upon it, and only the first two pages of must have been many were released.

Sure, Trump may have duped Maddow.

As I've said, partisan ideologues deserve what they get.
.

And with that you declare that Trump and his people are not partisans.

Goddam that's funny as well!

I missed that declaration from Mac somehow. That being said, Trump isn't a republican establishment partisan. He marches to his own tune. He does shoot from the hip a lot.

Yeah, didn't make that declaration. USMB's King of the Straw Man just makes stuff up as he goes.

You get used to it.
.

 

[williepete]

This post seems to have riled up most of the population of Ignore Island judging from the response count.

Madcow's rant was a tempest in a teacup compared to the media's fury over this headline:

Obamas paid effective tax rate of 18.7 percent in 2015
Obamas paid effective tax rate of 18.7 percent in 2015

Remember that outrage?

Me neither.

 

[Mac1958]

I have no problem characterizing this as a huge fail.

This was obviously a cherry-picked return designed to cast the most favorable light possible.

Maddow should've give it the two minute dismissal at the very end of her show it deserves.

Good for you, thank you. I'm not a Trump fan either, but this was BAD.

Finally some honesty here.
.

 

[Auld Phart]

TRUMP is playing a Putin, trying to get rid of the journalist investigating him, with trumped up charges that he set up.....he learned well from his mentor....

Someone stealing the returns would have stolen the full return, with the information we have all been looking for, not simply the first two pages showing trump making a bundle and paying taxes

Who held a gun to her head to air it?

 

[rich stacy]

Wrong without journalistic protection it is called receiving stolen property.

It wasn't stolen property, because nobody is alleging the physical papers she received had belonged to Trump. The information may have been stolen, but unless covered as interlectual property, ie copywriten, trademarked, patented etc, people are free to disclose it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Maddow forced the regressive Trump to release his tax return, and somebody silly regressively thinks Trump won?

Starkey, your gal pwned herself

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

You people are delusional. You wouldn't know how to even begin to read his tax returns they are so complex.

******* idiots.

 

[saveliberty]

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

 

[The Original Tree]

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.

Maybe Madcow and Geraldo can keep "DIGGING" in Al Capone's Vault?

 

[saveliberty]

Wrong without journalistic protection it is called receiving stolen property.

It wasn't stolen property, because nobody is alleging the physical papers she received had belonged to Trump. The information may have been stolen, but unless covered as interlectual property, ie copywriten, trademarked, patented etc, people are free to disclose it.

Wrong again, there are specific federal laws regarding the disclosure of tax return information.

 

[JBond]

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?

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

Last night she gave him and the GOP a BIG assist.

She'll have to dig herself out of that hole first.
.

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.

 

[Eaglewings]

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 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"? ******* progressives need to ******* 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

 

[easyt65]

Even if it was against the law, Democrats insist the law does not apply to them and can / will justify their actions. They are never held accountable. There will be no punishment, even if this was illegal.

 

[Lewdog]

Kiddie porn isn't the same thing. Kiddie porn isn't even in the same ******* galaxy as a tax return. Whomever sent out Trump's taxes broke the law, unless it was Trump or someone acting as his agent. Maddow and MSNBC did not pay for it and therefor as a journalist should could report on it without breaking the law. She also has Shield Laws that allow her to protect her source, though here those don't matter because the pages were mailed anonymously so she doesn't even know her source.

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.

 

[blastoff]

Boy, when the folks at Created News Network are laughing at you it's a tough day in Rachel's liberal cesspool.

Let's see...Geraldo Madow?...Rachel Rivera?...Rachel "Che" Rivera?...