Rachel Maddow tweets. BREAKING We've got Trump tax returns. Tonight, 9pm ET. MSNBC.

originally posted by: kosmicjack
I'm sure it's been asked but I haven't seen it - is this legal?

No

Confidentiality rules apply to all information the IRS has about your tax return, whether that information comes from you or from some other source. Unless allowed by law, an IRS employee cannot tell someone whether you even filed a tax return, let alone what is in your return or whether the IRS may be acting upon it in some way.
September 1997 FS-97-12 CONFIDENTIALITY OF TAX RETURN INFORMATION

is maddow going to get time off for this?

Honestly non biased opinion is if you still gave maddow any credibility yesterday morning you should be examining that decision today. Use this as an opportunity to right your wrongs and try to become a better person.

originally posted by: Martin75

originally posted by: kosmicjack
I'm sure it's been asked but I haven't seen it - is this legal?

No

Confidentiality rules apply to all information the IRS has about your tax return, whether that information comes from you or from some other source. Unless allowed by law, an IRS employee cannot tell someone whether you even filed a tax return, let alone what is in your return or whether the IRS may be acting upon it in some way.
September 1997 FS-97-12 CONFIDENTIALITY OF TAX RETURN INFORMATION

If I am not mistaken, that only applies to IRS employees.

a reply to: introvert
You may be right but I sure hope not. After rereading it does kinda read that way

IF Donald Trump made this 'anonymous mailing' happen, it was exceptionally smart on his behalf--and if he doesn't seek out prosecution over it, I think that will be enough circumstantial evidence (for me, anyhow) to believe that he had a hand in it.

The Left has constantly been whining about their belief that he pays nothing in taxes. Proof that he does (or, at least, did in 2005) in the form of $38M really ought to shut those people up, but I'm sure that those who scream and cry about his tax forms (which, by law, are protected and he doesn't have to release) wouldn't be satisfied even if he released every last one. I'm sure that they would just assume that they were false and that he's hiding something.

As for Maddow--anyone still taking this woman seriously needs to have their head examined.

a reply to: Martin75

That applies to the IRS, the lawyer, the accountant. Right?

originally posted by: Martin75
a reply to: introvert
You may be right but I sure hope not. After rereading it does kinda read that way

I believe there was a ruling by the supreme court that said the media can publish/release info such as this and it would be legal, as long as they did not take part in an illegal act.

Receiving this info in the mail is not an illegal act.

I'm not making any absolute claims but this is a conspiracy site and I'm noticing a pattern emerging. It seems like whenever a scandal emerges for this administration something suddenly happens that redirects the spotlight.

For example, right after Sessions was forced to recuse himself and it seemed like claims about Russian involvement were picking up steam Trump made his claims about Obama.

Now we have this benign tax return mysteriously showing up right after the deadline passed for the administration to provide evidence supporting Trump's claims regarding Obama.

Like I said I'm not making any claims. It just seems mighty suspicious that these non-stories keep cropping up right after something that actually is potentially damaging breaks.

originally posted by: Martin75
a reply to: Stormdancer777
Twice! The second time was the worst. It was at the end. The guy who comes on after her was telling her how amazing she was. She started getting all teary eyed talking about what she had been able to expose. She has officially fallen our of reality. I haven't been able to find a full clip of the show but will keep looking.

wow I would like to see that too.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

lolz! Ya think!? People are finally catching on. The top story yesterday was the joke that is repeal/replace - until this rosy return.

a reply to: introvert
You are mistaken.

There is a section that concerns 'other person,' meaning any person not an officer or employee of the federal or state governments.

Here you go (26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information [paragraph (a)(3)]):

(a) GENERAL RULE Returns and return information shall be confidential, and except as authorized by this title—
(1) no officer or employee of the United States,

(2) no officer or employee of any State, any local law enforcement agency receiving information under subsection (i)(1)(C) or (7)(A), any local child support enforcement agency, or any local agency administering a program listed in subsection (l)(7)(D) who has or had access to returns or return information under this section or section 6104(c), and

(3) no other person (or officer or employee thereof) who has or had access to returns or return information under subsection (e)(1)(D)(iii), subsection (k)(10), paragraph (6), (10), (12), (16), (19), (20), or (21) of subsection (l), paragraph (2) or (4)(B) of subsection (m), or subsection (n),

shall disclose any return or return information obtained by him in any manner in connection with his service as such an officer or an employee or otherwise or under the provisions of this section. For purposes of this subsection, the term “officer or employee” includes a former officer or employee.

It's pretty cut and dry, really: Tax returns and the information contained on them are confidential, and no one (except the "owner" of the information...the individual[s] who signed the tax form[s]...or people in the duty of their job) can disclose or release the information.

Period.

And even officers and employees do not have the ability to release said information to the public. Ever.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

I've also noticed a pattern.

It seems like every time something positive happens for this administration, new leaks come out about Russian connections.

Wait! Several others have noticed this pattern.

So it would seem the logical conclusion is that we are seeing a public relations war.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

It was like that with the Obama administration, too. And probably Bush...and Clinton...and other Bush...and so on down the line.

Wagging the dog, so to speak...it's a known tactic.

Don't forget he can write off $900 mil over 18 yrs from loss in 95'.

So it seems he might have used it up before 2005?

Not sure if he can just use it whenever he wants or not within the 18 yrs.

To make a totally objective view on all of this;

MSNBC got a boost in ratings.
Trump is still president.

Did I leave anything out?

My personal feelings on the media are evident and there really is no need to repeat myself. Same for my support for Trump.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I'm just pointing it out because some people on here seem to think it would be inconceivable for the Trump administration to be the source of the leak. Despite the fact that this seems to only be beneficial to Trump.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

thank you i've been looking for that since last night, i knew there was a law that said that. i also posted that it seems that madsow and msnbc are relying on the SCOTUS ruling that they can publish stolen information that they did have any involvement in obtaining.

a reply to: burgerbuddy

Or the Russians were making a donation to trump while disguising it as a real estate deal?
Why pay nearly double what trump paid only two years earlier, make no improvements even though the property had a mold issue. Then never move in or even visit the property and now it's scheduled to be torn down. Leaving the Russian with an empty lot he paid the highest real estate price in U.S. history for?
Yeah that guy isn't a dummy and didn't acquire billions by making bad real estate deals. This was something else entirely.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Above my pay grade man.
I'm just reporting what I heard.