Trump's tax returns

[BobTheCoward]

It boils down to credibility. In this case, we have the NYT with its long history of excellent investigative journalism. It has won 130 Pulitzer prizes. On the other hand, we have Donald Trump who holds the record for number of lies told by any president: 20,000+ in less than 4 years.

We also have the fact that the NYT would be subject to a defamation suit should they be publishing false information about Trump without the evidence to back it up and have a team of excellent lawyers who would have vetted all information. Gee.....let me see whom I would believe...the NYT or Trump....hmmm.....

Then when they put out their data for peer review, I will be confident that they did not falsify it.

 

[Minoosh]

Claims without presented evidence are rejected.

It's difficult to say someone's lying when all they've provided to begin with is innuendo - that the NYT's alleged refusal to turn over documents means whatever they say must be taken with a grain of salt.

But that comment was made after the poster cited a claim by a Trump lawyer that he apparently implicitly believe - that the NYT refused to turn over the documents - which it has no ethical, moral or legal obligation to do. Unlike Trump, who clearly said many times he would release the documents ASAP.

His lawyers or accountants could easily figure out which documents the NYT has. Crying about how the NYT won't give them to you is a typical chicken**** Trump ploy which will be duly amplified, a little bit on ISF and a lot on more Trump-friendly media.

 

[cosmicaug]

But that comment was made after the poster cited a claim by a Trump lawyer that he apparently implicitly believe - that the NYT refused to turn over the documents - which it has no ethical, moral or legal obligation to do. Unlike Trump, who clearly said many times he would release the documents ASAP.

The error is in thinking that this is just one presidential administration like any other. Everything produced by this administration (particularly that which comes directly from Trump or his spokespeople) should be treated as if it were coming straight out of Baghdad Bob's mouth* & tentatively dismissed until it can otherwise be confirmed.


* Heck, Baghdad Bob probably couldn't compete with Trump when it comes to untrustworthiness.

 

[Suddenly]

Tomorrow night I hope Biden says something along the lines of...

Are you the biggest loser in the history of business, or a tax cheat? The American people deserve to know.

Wouldn't give him that choice. Tees up the "I follow all laws successful / good attorneys" response.

Better to just bring up his being a fraud as a businessman. That way Trump has to bring up that he looks like a cheat but really isn't. Make Trump do the heavy lifting. Explaining is losing.

The $70,000 you deducted for your haircuts is more than most Americans make in two years working full time.

That route makes Trump look like a baller. Trump's excesses are a losing issue.

Better to bring up the amount and maybe lightly imply he was ripped off seeing his hair is preposterous. Getting Trump to angerly rant about his own hair could actually move the needle. Like "You spend seventy thousand dollars on your hair" with an emphasis and slight raised eyebrow on "your."

There is so much material here for Biden to provoke Trump into madness while seeming folksy and not mean about it. Let the material do the work and don't try to explain why it is bad. Just lay it out there.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Lionel Hutz wouldn't fall for this kind of "Well technically speaking my client never said..." level of nonsense.

There's a reason mob guys can't really go "Nice place you go here, be a shame if something happened to it...." instead of "Pay me protection money or I'll burn your store to the ground" and get away with it.

The Legal System of the United States is pedantic, it's not lawful stupid.

 

[Ziggurat]

So do you.

That doesn't contradict anything I said. What you pay and what you owe aren't the same. Claims were made about what Trump paid, and those claims were wrong.

 

[JoeMorgue]

That doesn't contradict anything I said. What you pay and what you owe aren't the same. Claims were made about what Trump paid, and those claims were wrong.

It contradicts everything you said and you aren't going to start a side argument about it.

 

[Ziggurat]

I did. Did you notice the millions he got from Duterte, Modi and Erdogan?

That's quite the logical leap from "It came from the Phillipines" to "it came from Duterte", etc.

 

[Ziggurat]

It contradicts everything you said

Before you were being, as you phrased it, selectively honest. Now you're actually lying.

 

[Suddenly]

Then when they put out their data for peer review, I will be confident that they did not falsify it.

They have. The data is there, they say how they have the data.

Trump is a peer in this case. If he has data showing the NYT data is false, he can speak up.

Otherwise he would be implicit in any fraud that is happening. In this case the silence bolsters the NYT credibility. This isn't a criminal case.

Not yet, anyway.

 

[Stacyhs]

Including one for Walter Duranty.

LOL. Yep, one bad Pulitzer from 1934 out of 130 certainly balances out 20,000+ lies told in less than 4 years told by Trump. You got me there!

Well, no. The lawyers should check that what they print matches the information they have. The lawyers do not have to confirm the information they have is correct, let alone complete.

You don't think the lawyers didn't look at the tax returns? You don't think they didn't have tax experts look at the tax returns? Of course they did. T

It's very, very hard for a public figure like Trump to win a defamation suit in the US, even when the information in question is provably wrong.

In this case it wouldn't be all that difficult since "injury" wouldn't be that hard to prove. It's right before the election and the numbers would have to be clearly incorrect (which is what Trump's lawyers are claiming).

That being said, I have no problem with provisionally accepting the NYT's story as being accurate, but likely not complete. Not seeing much scandal here, though.

Then why did you bother with your original post?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Before you were being, as you phrased it, selectively honest. Now you're actually lying.

Your god-king is a massive tax fraud. Watching you try to pettifog your way out of it is just sad.

At this point watching people defend Trump is like watching a woman explain to me that her husband wouldn't have given her a black eye if she just hadn't burned the roast.

You can't even think of any new ways to distract from him anymore so you just attract attention to yourself so the discussion has to stop while we call you out on our dishonest arguments. Senpai is not going to notice you, stop catching arrows meant for him with your own body.

 

[BobTheCoward]

They have. The data is there, they say how they have the data.

Trump is a peer in this case. If he has data showing the NYT data is false, he can speak up.

Otherwise he would be implicit in any fraud that is happening. In this case the silence bolsters the NYT credibility. This isn't a criminal case.

Not yet, anyway.

That is not the peer review process.

I'm not going to accept someone's word on it.

 

[Bob001]

That doesn't contradict anything I said. What you pay and what you owe aren't the same. Claims were made about what Trump paid, and those claims were wrong.

Now you're just being silly. Most of us use the terms interchangeably because we pay what we owe when we owe it, and we don't pay more than we owe if we don't have to. The correct word might be overpaid. The fact is that he manipulated credits and deductions to reduce his actual tax due that year to $750, and he asked that his overpayments be credited to future years. He could probably have requested a fat refund, and if he didn't it's not clear why.

And all that is without considering his exaggeration of his losses and expenses, like paying "consulting fees" to people who were his employees.

 

[Minoosh]

If Trump asks his followers for money he'll get it.

He's been calling my house 3 times a day for weeks if not months. Hasn't worked yet.

 

[Stacyhs]

Then when they put out their data for peer review, I will be confident that they did not falsify it.

When Trump releases his tax returns,...oh, wait....I can just stop there, can't I?

There's a reason he's been fighting so hard not release them and we're beginning to see why. But this is just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[BobTheCoward]

When Trump releases his tax returns,...oh, wait....I can just stop there, can't I?

There's a reason he's been fighting so hard not release them and we're beginning to see why. But this is just the tip of the iceberg.

I reject the claims made by every side.

 

[JoeMorgue]

He's been calling my house 3 times a day for weeks if not months. Hasn't worked yet.

I like to think you aren't one of his followers.

But these people paid 20 million to a shyster to get his wall built. If Trump gets on TV and does the whole televangelist routine, he'll make bank.

 

[Suddenly]

That is not the peer review process.

Prove it.

And remember, your word isn't enough.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Prove it.

And remember, your word isn't enough.

I'm cool not fulfilling that burden and you rejecting my claim. I prefer it, actually.