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

a reply to: Sillyolme

So the Russians gave a bribe to Trump 11 years before he decided to run for president.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
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.

Let's just suppose what you think is true.

He would be banking on someone at an openly hostile network to simply open and read that stuff sight-unseen, meaning he would have to count on that personality being dumb as a box of rocks.

Given how intellectually superior everyone on the left likes to think they are and portray themselves as, that would seem to be a tall order, but then, John Podesta also had "password" as his password too.

a reply to: diggindirt

And when he turns over his tax returns you'll then begin demanding to see his those of his children, then of his present and former employees....you won't stop.

So now it's my fault that Trump broke his promise and has refused to release his tax returns? Nobody cares about his 2005 taxes, they're irrelevant to the issues at hand. We want to see his recent taxes and his recent financial situation. Not his kids', not his employees', unless they're cabinet members with potential conflicts of interest.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
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.

This happens all of the time, especially on a local level. Developers go in and buy up land/property that's owned by local officials in return for tax breaks or zoning considerations. Like book deals, it's hard to prove.

I've worked many real estate deals in my life and nobody goes in and pays double just to have a house demolished.

Where do you guys come up with this logic?

originally posted by: kosmicjack

originally posted by: Sillyolme
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.

This happens all of the time, especially on a local level. Developers go in and buy up land/property that's owned by local officials in return for tax breaks or zoning considerations. Like book deals, it's hard to prove.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Sillyolme

So the Russians gave a bribe to Trump 11 years before he decided to run for president.

Didn't you know....Putin is able to see the future...his alias is John Titor!

Has anyone mentioned that Melania is listed is 'Melanija Knavs,' on the returns? Did she not take 'Trump' as her married name?

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
Has anyone mentioned that Melania is listed is 'Melanija Knavs,' on the returns? Did she not take 'Trump' as her married name?

They weren't married until 2005, so it's possible she hadn't had the name change finalized prior to filing taxes.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I understand what the US Code states, but it is not that cut and dry.

The media has 1st amendment protections that allow them to publish information that may otherwise be protected. Here is an example:

Does the First Amendment provide protection to speech that discloses the contents of an illegally intercepted communication?

Yes. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court held that the First Amendment protects the disclosure of illegally intercepted communications by parties who did not participate in the illegal interception. "In this case, privacy concerns give way when balanced against the interest in publishing matters of public importance," wrote Justice Stevens. "[A] stranger's illegal conduct does not suffice to remove the First Amendment shield from speech about a matter of public concern." Noting that the negotiations were a matter of public interest, Justice Stevens wrote that the "debate may be more mundane than the Communist rhetoric that inspired Justice Brandeis' classic opinion in Whitney v. California, but it is no less worthy of constitutional protection."

www.oyez.org...

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Didn't she name the source of the leak? It was provided to her by the author of a book "The rise of trump" or some such.

Edit: Found it. David Johnson, The Making of Donald Trump.

Maddow obtained the two-page document from Pulitzer Prize winning journalist David Cay Johnson, who said he received the returns from an anonymous source who left it in his mailbox.

But I think I see what you meant now. Sorry, haven't had coffee this morning. Trump's team could have leaked this Tax Return to Johnson.

It honestly is a GREAT looking tax return. 25% in taxes paid as an effective rate. Millions more paid out in other fees...Maddow should have sat on it.

a reply to: burgerbuddy

You're actually sad that a russian multi billionaire oligark got screwed on a house?!!

Nope. It smacks of money laundering.

a reply to: SeekingAlpha


You are being too literal. It could be a payoff.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
Has anyone mentioned that Melania is listed is 'Melanija Knavs,' on the returns? Did she not take 'Trump' as her married name?

They weren't married until 2005, so it's possible she hadn't had the name change finalized prior to filing taxes.

They were married in January 2005. These taxes were filed in early 2006. So, I guess that seems odd to me.

a reply to: DBCowboy

MSNBC got a boost in ratings.

But how many of those people that did tune in to boost the ratings decide that they never want to watch MSNBC ever again?
I think in the end, it won't be a net plus for MSNBC.
I deliberately did not watch the show because I didn't want to boost their ratings.

a reply to: introvert

Right. If I find your tax return in the street I could publish it it I wanted.
Corporate law requires that tax returns be maintained for seven years after which you can dispose of the documentation.
This return is older than seven years. It may have been discarded as an annual purge of documentation.
I know as a business owner I didn't have unlimited space to maintain records and receipts so I cleaned out every year. Of course we shredded confidential stuff like credit applications and tax stuff but invoices just went in the trash. I still have my first tax return as a business owner as a source of pride in my accomplishment lol.

a reply to: SeekingAlpha

I bought land in 2003 with a mediocre house on it. I sold it in late 2006 for literally twice what I bought it for and the people who bought it destroyed the house and built a new one...that house foreclosed in 2010 and is now on the market for slightly less than I sold it for in 2006...

a reply to: hounddoghowlie
Maybe they can, but I'm willing to bet that when it comes to private tax information, they can not.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Agreed--like I said in a different comment, I'll be interested to see if charges are pursued against MSNBC and/or any of its people. If not, I'm going to assume that Trump was complicit in the 'anonymous mailing' of his 1040, because like you said, it totally benefits him to prove to the world that he not only pays taxes, but paid them at a 25% rate to the tune of $38M.

a reply to: kosmicjack

Any proof, evidence, source you could post to back that up would be appreciated.