quote:

Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:
Trumps's tax returns are intensive audited by the IRS – every year. He ain't cheating.

But the NY Times ought to be prosecuted for publishing a stolen tax document.

You are spot on.

What is the greater offense?
Taking credit for deductions allowed by the tax code, or leaking confidential IRS documents of conservative individuals?
This goes beyond just leaking Trumps documents.
The liberals have and still are using the IRS to target conservatives.

You can easily find plenty of examples of how corporations try to evade the 35% tax.

Remember Jeffrey Immelt, theguy who Obama designated as his liason to the business community ?

Jeffrey Immelt was General Electric's chief executive.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03...s/economy/25tax.html

2010: GE had worldwide profits of $14.2 billion, and said $5.1 billion of the total came from its operations in the United States.

Its American tax bill? None. In fact, G.E. claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.

Its extraordinary success is based on an aggressive strategy that mixes fierce lobbying for tax breaks and innovative accounting that enables it to concentrate its profits offshore. G.E.’s giant tax department, led by a bow-tied former Treasury official named John Samuels, is often referred to as the world’s best tax law firm.

The team includes former officials not just from the Treasury, but also from the I.R.S. and virtually all the tax-writing committees in Congress.

Trump Right on Trade Predators
Is America still a serious nation?

Consider. While U.S. elites were denouncing Donald Trump as unfit to serve for having compared Miss Universe 1996 to “Miss Piggy” of “The Muppets,” the World Trade Organization was validating the principal plank of his platform.

America’s allies are cheating and robbing her blind on trade.

According to the WTO, Britain, France, Spain, Germany and the EU pumped $22 billion in illegal subsidies into Airbus to swindle Boeing out of the sale of 375 commercial jets.

Subsidies to the A320 caused lost sales of 271 Boeing 737s, writes journalist Alan Boyle. Subsidies for planes in the twin-aisle market cost the sale of 50 Boeing 767s, 777s and 787s. And subsidies to the A380 cost Boeing the sale of 54 747s. These represent crippling losses for Boeing, a crown jewel of U.S. manufacturing and a critical component of our national defense.

Earlier, writes Boyle, the WTO ruled that, “without the subsidies, Airbus would not have existed … and there would be no Airbus aircraft on the market.”

{snip}

For an advanced economy like the United States, such deficits are milestones of national decline. We have been running them now for 40 years. But in the era of U.S. economic supremacy from 1870 to 1970, we always ran an annual trade surplus, selling far more abroad than Americans bought from abroad.

{snip}

But to watch how we allow NATO allies we defend and protect getting away with decades of colluding and cheating, and then to watch Boeing transfer technology and outsource critical manufacturing to rivals like Japan, one must conclude that not only is the industrial decline of the United States inevitable, but America’s elites do not care.

As for our corporate chieftains, they seem accepting of what is coming when they are gone, so long as the salary increases, stock prices and options, severance packages, and profits remain high.

By increasingly relying upon foreign nations for our national needs, and by outsourcing production, we are outsourcing America’s future.

After Munich in 1938, Neville Chamberlain and Lord Halifax visited Italy to wean Mussolini away from Hitler. The Italian dictator observed his guests closely and remarked to his foreign minister:
“These men are not made of the same stuff as the Francis Drakes and the other magnificent adventurers who created the empire. These, after all, are the tired sons of a long line of rich men, and they will lose their empire.”
If the present regime is not replaced, something like that will be said of this generation of Americans...

How did the NYT get Trump's tax docs? Is the IRS up to the same shit this election? I hope not but suspect that they are.

quote:

How did the NYT get Trump's tax docs?

They just showed up in the mail! Nothing illegal about that!

I hope this is ok to post this I find it odd.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMO-8VRXwlI

quote:

How did the NYT get Trump's tax docs? Is the IRS up to the same shit this election? I hope not but suspect that they are.

A special prosecutor needs to be appointed to investigate this. Could Ms. Lerner be involved in this?

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Yes, and if Trump wins, we're going to be contacting some of those people to volunteer to help them with packing their shit, and after 6 months, when their lying ass is still here, we'll check in to see what is the delay.

Time to start looking at Kenyan properties for Whoopi Stupid Goldberg.

WikiLeaks says that Julian Assange has an announcement scheduled from his balcony on Tuesday. This is widely thought to be the "October Surprise" he has promised about Hillary Clinton.

It's hard to know these days what to pay attention to. This might be something big. Might not. We'll see.

quote:

Originally posted by justjoe:
WikiLeaks says that Julian Assange has an announcement scheduled from his balcony on Tuesday. This is widely thought to be the "October Surprise" he has promised about Hillary Clinton.

Cancelled due to security concerns.

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...curity-concerns.html

quote:

Originally posted by justjoe:
WikiLeaks says that Julian Assange has an announcement scheduled from his balcony on Tuesday. This is widely thought to be the "October Surprise" he has promised about Hillary Clinton.

It's hard to know these days what to pay attention to. This might be something big. Might not. We'll see.

Several media sources are saying late today that Assange cancelled the Tuesday release on his balcony due to security concerns from the embassy staff.

Just release the information. I hope he's not another publicity hound with empty promises.

Like all the FBI Agents ready to resign in protest if charges weren't filed against hillary.

He is pretty media savvy. Canceling the announcement draws more attention to it. A nothing burger? We'll see.

quote:

Originally posted by braillediver:

Like all the FBI Agents ready to resign in protest if charges weren't filed against hillary.

As far as I know, not a single FBI agent ever threatened to resign over the email investigation. I don't know why you guys keep saying that they did.

Posted by justjoe,

quote:

savvy. Canceling the announcement draws more attention to it. A nothing burger? We'll see.

My thoughts exactly! It is a spectacular way to pique interest from a clearly biased media that would love to look the other way....make it so they can't help but report it!

A few weeks ago I caught a interview between Hannity and Assange where he seemed extremely reluctant to discuss the information he had and was planning on releasing. He deemed to be trying hard to downplay what he had. It will certainly be interesting to see what he is taking about.

Here is Bill and Hillary's tax return if anyone wants to see it. They also took all the deductions they could like Donald Trump did, and every American with half a brain.

https://m.hrc.onl/secretary/10...h_Signature_Page.pdf

quote:

Originally posted by roberth:

quote:

Originally posted by rh:

Warren Buffet complains that his tax rate is lower than his secretary. (It's unclear if Buffet is being truthful.)

Warren was being deceptive like a good (D).

Warren's money is taxed at the capital gains rate, his secretary is taxed at the regular income rate, those rates are quite different.

That post was more quick than thoroughly explained. Buffet claims that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary which would presumably be due to some secretary's personal income tax rate being higher than the tax rate of Buffet's long term capital gains and qualified dividends. I added the parenthetical part after finding this opinion article: Warren Buffett's Actual Tax Rate Much Closer To 31%, While His Office Workers Pay 21% while searching to verify that his Buffet's claim was about a secretary.

Whatever Buffet's tax rate is, my point was that the NY Times - which published Buffet's opinion piece - is fine with Buffet using the tax laws to pay the least taxes legally possible. But when Donald Trump is discovered legally using tax laws to pay the least tax possible, that's a major breaking headline for non-obvious reasons.

From a subscriber only Wall Street Journal headline article:

"The big loss contradicts his campaign image as a highly successful New York real-estate developer. At the same time, the documents highlight the gulf between Mr. Trump and the vast majority of voters who have their taxes withheld from their wages with little opportunity to alter the timing of their income or hire sophisticated lawyers and accountants."

So Donald Trump reported a large loss 21 years ago, and the fact that the vast majority of voters are not large real estate developers was the justification for a headline article.

CNN's opinion about "Why Revelation Shocks" is comprised of a confusing amalgam of words speculating that Trump lost someone else's money along with a video of Bernie Sanders explaining that this country is tired of billionaires using loopholes to avoid paying taxes.

So basically the MSM obtained a copy of an old Trump tax return, but not finding anything damaging in the tax return, they're just putting up headline articles to bring it the public's attention.

quote:

Originally posted by kimber1911:

quote:

Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:
But the NY Times ought to be prosecuted for publishing a stolen tax document.

What is the greater offense?
Taking credit for deductions allowed by the tax code, or leaking confidential IRS documents of conservative individuals?

That's easy to answer. It hasn't even been alleged that Trump did anything illegal. The New York Times knowingly broke a Federal law by publishing Trump's tax return: Washington Post article

Remember when the NYT refused to publish the climate-gate emails that proved that scientists were colluding to falsify climate data? They said that the emails were intended to be private and they could never ethically breach that privacy

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11.../21climate.html?_r=1