RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: NY Times Publication of Trump Tax Information - RightNation.US

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

NY Times Publication of Trump Tax Information Violates His Legal Right to Confidentiality Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is offline   MTP Reggie 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 35,359
  • Joined: 13-January 04

Posted 11 May 2019 - 02:00 PM

NY Times Publication of Trump Tax Information Violates His Legal Right to Confidentiality
May 10th, 2019
COMMENTARY BY Hans A. von Spakovsky
Heritage.org

<More Here>

The New York Times no doubt considers it quite a coup to have obtained and published President Trump's tax return information from 1985 to 1994. But doing so violated Trump's right under federal law to the confidentiality of his tax returns.

The Times – which reported that Trump's businesses lost $1.17 billion during the 10-year period – has no more right to Trump's tax returns than it has to mine or those of any of you reading these words.

Confidentiality, as the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held in 1991 in U.S. v. Richey, is essential to "maintaining a workable tax system."

Taxpayer privacy is "fundamental to a tax system that relies on self-reporting" since it protects "sensitive or otherwise personal information," said then-Judge (now Supreme Court Justice) Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1986 in another case when she served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Federal law – 26 U.S.C. §7213(a)(1) – makes it a felony for any federal employee to disclose tax returns or "return information." Infractions are punishable by up to five years in prison and a fine as high as $250,000 under the Alternative Fines Act (18 U.S.C. §3571).

Regardless of the accuracy or inaccuracy of The New York Times story, tax returns themselves, as well as tax return information such as these IRS transcripts (which are a summary of the tax returns), are protected from disclosure by federal law. And this provision applies to private individuals as well as government employees, a fact that should be considered by the New York Times' source.

According to the newspaper, it did not actually obtain Trump's tax returns but "printouts from his official Internal Revenue Service tax transcripts, with the figures from his federal tax form, the 1040, from someone who had legal access to them."

The Times quotes a lawyer for the president, Charles J. Harder, as saying that the tax information in the story is "demonstrably false" and that IRS transcripts, particularly from the days before electronic filing, are "notoriously inaccurate." However, that claim is disputed by a former IRS employee now at the liberal Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.

The president tweeted Wednesday in response to the Times story: "Real estate developers in the 1980's & 1990's, more than 30 years ago, were entitled to massive write offs and depreciation which would, if one was actively building, show losses and tax losses in almost all cases. Much was non monetary. Sometimes considered 'tax shelter,' ... you would get it by building, or even buying. You always wanted to show losses for tax purposes....almost all real estate developers did - and often re-negotiate with banks, it was sport. Additionally, the very old information put out is a highly inaccurate Fake News hit job!"

Regardless of the accuracy or inaccuracy of The New York Times story, tax returns themselves, as well as tax return information such as these IRS transcripts (which are a summary of the tax returns), are protected from disclosure by federal law. If the newspaper obtained this information from an employee of the IRS, that employee will be in big trouble if he or she is identified.

Could the editors and reporters at the New York Times be prosecuted for publishing this information?

Section (a)(3) of the law makes it a felony for any person who receives an illegally disclosed tax return or return information to publish that return or that information. But it's unknown if the bar on publication by a media organization could survive a First Amendment challenge.

(snip)

<More Here>
0

#2 User is offline   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 27,163
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 11 May 2019 - 02:40 PM

Whether they are prosecuted or not, this was a really stupid move by NYT.
1) Trump ran a loss. I know the left intends to use this as “he’s a dumb business guy”, but it’s likely to actually register as sympathy among voters.
2) They can’t show what they wanted to show, that Trump made billions and paid 10% tax. The main thing they wanted, that the rich pay less tax than regular people and need to pay their “fair share”, they totally flopped on.
3) When democrat candidates demand Trump’s tax returns, he can say NYT already shared them and it becomes a non-story.

So, actually, this works for me. It’s a win by self-inflicted error. I’ll take it.
0

#3 User is offline   Rock N' Roll Right Winger 

  • Pissing off all of the right people
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 30,031
  • Joined: 14-October 03

Posted 11 May 2019 - 03:20 PM

They need to be both prosecuted AND sued to hell.

This kind of shidt needs to be put to a stop and right now.
0

#4 User is offline   RedSoloCup 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 4,840
  • Joined: 05-June 15

Posted 11 May 2019 - 04:39 PM

Time to sue the <censored> out of the New York Slimes.

Hopefully the rag suffers irreparable damage...

View PostRock N, on 11 May 2019 - 03:20 PM, said:

They need to be both prosecuted AND sued to hell.

This kind of shidt needs to be put to a stop and right now.


:exactly:
0

#5 User is offline   Taggart Transcontinental 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 26,603
  • Joined: 22-October 03

Posted 11 May 2019 - 05:02 PM

Quote

The court decisions supporting Mnuchin’s decision include the 1957 decision in Watkins v. U.S., in which the Supreme Court told the House Un-American Activities Committee that “there is no congressional power to expose for the sake of exposure” the “private affairs of individuals.”


Wow the two precedents are ironic, one being the grim reaper on the bench and the other against the HUAAC. This is slam dunk.



0

#6 User is offline   gravelrash 

  • I wish they all were punk rock girls
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 14,747
  • Joined: 24-June 03

Posted 11 May 2019 - 06:18 PM

View Postzurg, on 11 May 2019 - 02:40 PM, said:

Whether they are prosecuted or not, this was a really stupid move by NYT.
1) Trump ran a loss. I know the left intends to use this as “he’s a dumb business guy”, but it’s likely to actually register as sympathy among voters.
2) They can’t show what they wanted to show, that Trump made billions and paid 10% tax. The main thing they wanted, that the rich pay less tax than regular people and need to pay their “fair share”, they totally flopped on.
3) When democrat candidates demand Trump’s tax returns, he can say NYT already shared them and it becomes a non-story.

So, actually, this works for me. It’s a win by self-inflicted error. I’ll take it.


I didn't consider these points. Trump has an out. His reelection campaign can point out how crooked the NYT is. Which many voters will regard as an attack on our duly-elected President if not on them personally.
0

#7 User is offline   GhostOfAndrewJackson 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Community-Supported
  • Posts: 68
  • Joined: 17-April 19

Posted 11 May 2019 - 06:57 PM

I am staying in a very dark blue state in a democratic city with a majority hispanic population. The only people around me I know that do not like Trump are hard core libertarians, the LGBT community and the Republican machine apparatchiks. The hispanics admire his cojones and want the wall up to keep their wages up. I just don't see how this does anything but rally his base and gain him the blue collar working man sympathy vote. The working man knows that even if those deal went under and some contracting firms got stiffed labor got paid. Foundations that are poured that are never built upon still produced jobs for labor. The trouble with this type of attack as it does not matter to those who are persons of business who understand business and the nature of the beast and it does not matter to those blue collar workers who fully understand even projects that do not complete give the a paycheck. So all it does is antagonize the never-Trumpers in the Republican party and rile up a segment of the liberal population who would never vote for his in the first place.

In the end all this accomplishes is highlighting how dirty the news business is and steers people away to alternative sources.

This post has been edited by GhostOfAndrewJackson: 11 May 2019 - 06:59 PM

0

#8 User is offline   helton 

  • Blueberries good, liberals bad!
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 360
  • Joined: 02-September 03

Posted 11 May 2019 - 07:00 PM

View Postzurg, on 11 May 2019 - 02:40 PM, said:

Whether they are prosecuted or not, this was a really stupid move by NYT.
1) Trump ran a loss. I know the left intends to use this as “he’s a dumb business guy”, but it’s likely to actually register as sympathy among voters.
2) They can’t show what they wanted to show, that Trump made billions and paid 10% tax. The main thing they wanted, that the rich pay less tax than regular people and need to pay their “fair share”, they totally flopped on.
3) When democrat candidates demand Trump’s tax returns, he can say NYT already shared them and it becomes a non-story.

So, actually, this works for me. It’s a win by self-inflicted error. I’ll take it.


Well said.

I don't know when the NYT actually became the Democratic water carrying shamefest it now is, but it goes back to at least October 6, 2006. That was the date the paper reported on the bum's rush Jim Gilchrist of the Minutemen Project received at Columbia University on October 4. Invited by the school's College Republicans Club to speak, Gilchrist had to run for his life when students rushed the stage, refusing to allow him his first amendment right to free speech.

The NYT naturally lumped illegal and illegal immigration into one nice lie, which has become the norm for the left.

The first paragragh of the article describes the Minutemen as an "anti-immigration group." The second paragraph properly and accurately describes the Minutemen as "a self-appointed band of civilian border patrols that have focused mostly on preventing illegal immigration from Mexico."

But, the Times wouldn't use the more accurate 2nd paragraph as the lead paragraph. No...it had to lie in the lead paragraph by describing the Minutemen as anti-immigration.

The New York Times...the Rodney Dangerfield of newspapers ("No respect, no respect.")

Here is the NYT article from 10/6/06...https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/06/nyregion/07columbiacnd.html
0

#9 User is offline   MTP Reggie 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 35,359
  • Joined: 13-January 04

Posted 11 May 2019 - 07:02 PM

The NY Times is currently trying to toot their own horn, and running this ad on national television.



0

#10 User is offline   Ticked@TinselTown 

  • Unimpressed with Celebutards since Always
  • View blog
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 28,306
  • Joined: 01-April 03

Posted 11 May 2019 - 10:52 PM

View PostRock N, on 11 May 2019 - 03:20 PM, said:

They need to be both prosecuted AND sued to hell.

This kind of shidt needs to be put to a stop and right now.


EXACTLY RIGHT!
0

#11 User is offline   Howsithangin 

  • It's OK To Be White
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 26,972
  • Joined: 07-March 08

Posted 12 May 2019 - 03:39 AM

Meanwhile, still waiting on Clinton's medical physical, and Obama's entire, truthful life history.

The real NYT motto: "All the News We Select to Print"


<_<
0

#12 User is offline   donsaliman 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 2,868
  • Joined: 19-March 03

Posted 12 May 2019 - 10:28 AM

On the Greg Gutfeld show this last evening, he showed an interview with Trump during that time, talking about this on an interview for TV, so nothing new about this
0

#13 User is offline   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 27,163
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 12 May 2019 - 10:38 AM

View Postdonsaliman, on 12 May 2019 - 10:28 AM, said:

On the Greg Gutfeld show this last evening, he showed an interview with Trump during that time, talking about this on an interview for TV, so nothing new about this

So Trump didn’t lie after all? People are gonna so hate this.
0

#14 User is offline   Dean Adam Smithee 

  • School of the Cold Hard Facts
  • View gallery
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 20,441
  • Joined: 11-December 04

Posted 12 May 2019 - 12:04 PM

View Postzurg, on 11 May 2019 - 02:40 PM, said:

Whether they are prosecuted or not, this was a really stupid move by NYT.
1) Trump ran a loss. I know the left intends to use this as “he’s a dumb business guy”, but it’s likely to actually register as sympathy among voters.
2) They can’t show what they wanted to show, that Trump made billions and paid 10% tax. The main thing they wanted, that the rich pay less tax than regular people and need to pay their “fair share”, they totally flopped on.
3) When democrat candidates demand Trump’s tax returns, he can say NYT already shared them and it becomes a non-story.

So, actually, this works for me. It’s a win by self-inflicted error. I’ll take it.


Exactly.

Plus, the NYT is trying to act like it's some sort of journalistic 'scoop' that trump lost lots of money at various times. But that's no 'secret'. Heck, Trump has spoken about it himself from time to time.

IMHO, Trump's best book - better than "Art of the Deal" even - was Never Give Up which was ALL about making comebacks after various projects flopped.

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41dGFna9jML._SX318_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
0

#15 User is offline   Dean Adam Smithee 

  • School of the Cold Hard Facts
  • View gallery
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 20,441
  • Joined: 11-December 04

Posted 12 May 2019 - 12:11 PM

View PostHowsithangin, on 12 May 2019 - 03:39 AM, said:

Meanwhile, still waiting on Clinton's medical physical, and Obama's entire, truthful life history.

The real NYT motto: "All the News We Select to Print"


<_<


Aw, man. Transplant the word 'truthful' into the organism of "Obama's entire life history" and the organism would not only reject the transplant but keel over instantly from systemic shock.
0

#16 User is offline   MTP Reggie 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 35,359
  • Joined: 13-January 04

Posted 13 May 2019 - 06:37 AM

https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/60173566_10158153584862316_7328335906404827136_n.jpg?_nc_cat=109&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-1.xx&oh=5cc2ec3bbae1e28340480b48a08909fa&oe=5D528757
0

#17 User is offline   MTP Reggie 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 35,359
  • Joined: 13-January 04

Posted 14 May 2019 - 11:11 AM

https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/30705772_10156609692272922_1592160603013644288_n.jpg?_nc_cat=101&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-1.xx&oh=8a9525d792cb837aea52a40a0ab7edd6&oe=5D5594EC
0

#18 User is offline   Dean Adam Smithee 

  • School of the Cold Hard Facts
  • View gallery
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 20,441
  • Joined: 11-December 04

Posted 14 May 2019 - 01:04 PM

View PostMTP Reggie, on 14 May 2019 - 11:11 AM, said:

https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/30705772_10156609692272922_1592160603013644288_n.jpg?_nc_cat=101&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-1.xx&oh=8a9525d792cb837aea52a40a0ab7edd6&oe=5D5594EC


I have a theory that potentially explains much of this AND the multiple SS Numbers: Back in the day he snitched on somebody BIG - maybe one of his Bill-Ayers-ish terrorist acquaintences? - and then kept getting moved around in the FBIs Witness Protection Program.

YES, it's JUST a "theory". But it fits just as well as any other theory.
0

#19 User is offline   RedSoloCup 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 4,840
  • Joined: 05-June 15

Posted 14 May 2019 - 03:14 PM

 MTP Reggie, on 14 May 2019 - 11:11 AM, said:

https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/30705772_10156609692272922_1592160603013644288_n.jpg?_nc_cat=101&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-1.xx&oh=8a9525d792cb837aea52a40a0ab7edd6&oe=5D5594EC


:clap:
0

#20 User is offline   GhostOfAndrewJackson 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Community-Supported
  • Posts: 68
  • Joined: 17-April 19

Posted 14 May 2019 - 03:45 PM

View PostDean Adam Smithee, on 14 May 2019 - 01:04 PM, said:

I have a theory that potentially explains much of this AND the multiple SS Numbers: Back in the day he snitched on somebody BIG - maybe one of his Bill-Ayers-ish terrorist acquaintences? - and then kept getting moved around in the FBIs Witness Protection Program.

YES, it's JUST a "theory". But it fits just as well as any other theory.


My theory is he entered this country and gained access to the university system on a persecution visa, which also gave him extra points in the university system, by claiming to be a persecuted gay Muslim in fear of his life.
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users