NYT publishes Trump tax returns
-
I think it's also true that most people would not begin to understand his tax returns. I'm not sure he would.
That he didn't take as much income as people might think in no way reflects how much he made.
@Mik said in NYT publishes Trump tax returns:
I think it's also true that most people would not begin to understand his tax returns. I'm not sure he would.
That he didn't take as much income as people might think in no way reflects how much he made.
He didn't file 1040EZ?
-
Ann Althouse comments:
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
".... the final nail in his coffin...."
A bunch of links about Trump's newly dumped tax forms — beginning with the screwiest one:
Yeah, thanks. I'll try not to let "cynics" dissuade me from pounding nails into coffins. What had stood out to me was that no one seemed to see any crimes, so it's certainly cheerful to have The Daily Beast come along and declare — who needs crimes? — that there's never been a better reason to throw Trump in prison.
-
I think the best reason to release them was that he so clearly didn't want to disclose them.
I know, it's childish and stupid. But so is he.
-
@Mik said in NYT publishes Trump tax returns:
If the Daily Beast says it it’s automatically wrong.
More in that article at The Beast:
Among other things, Trump’s tax returns make a strong case for restoring the law that until 1924 made all income tax returns public. Newspapers back then ran long lists showing the income of and taxes paid by the wealthiest Americans.
With no evidence of cheating, they say that he "can" cheat.
People like Trump who earn money from legal sources can cheat like crazy on their tax returns with almost nothing to fear. That’s because fewer than 600 people at all income levels are convicted of tax fraud in a typical year.
And then they speculate;
A little-known reason the IRS rarely audits someone like Trump, even if there are indications of brazen fraud, is that if an audit will not raise any revenue immediately, it looks bad on IRS performance reports.
And unfamiliar with the "bill of attainder" concept:
The Trump tax returns also reinforce that Congress should pass a law directing the IRS to make public years of income tax returns for any presidential candidate who meets a low threshold—say, winning two primaries, or being nominated by a political party.
It was NOTORIUS!
As for his now-notorious avoidance of audits, how did Trump duck what Biden, Obama, and every other president else going back to the late 1970s did not? Easy. Trump appointed both the IRS commissioner, Charles Rettig, and his boss, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin.
Here's that bill of attainder stuff again:
Looking forward, Congress should pass a law imposing serious fines and perhaps even prison time for any IRS commissioner or Treasury secretary on whose watch any presidential tax return isn’t promptly and thoroughly audited.
-
"NO one is going to care They just keep trying to do this stuff and coming up empty handed."
-
I don't think he'll be indicted either. DOJ has been uncharacteristically silent on the Jan 6 referrals.
Even if he is they will find it awfully hard to prove anything.
-
I don't think he'll be indicted either. DOJ has been uncharacteristically silent on the Jan 6 referrals.
Even if he is they will find it awfully hard to prove anything.
@Mik said in NYT publishes Trump tax returns:
I don't think he'll be indicted either. DOJ has been uncharacteristically silent on the Jan 6 referrals.
Even if he is they will find it awfully hard to prove anything.
DoJ is out of the “investigate Trump” business ever since he declared his candidacy. They referred this to special prosecutor Jack Smith, along with the investigation of the theft and coverup of classified materials.
-
Just a feeling, but I don't think Jack is going to produce anything actionable.
