I'll give you one link: Chris Cillizza, "This 2005 Donald Trump tax return is a total nothingburger."
[B]ecause of Trump's refusal to release his tax returns, there has long been speculation that he may not have paid any taxes from the mid-1990s — when we know he reported more than $900 million in losses on his tax returns — until the mid-2000s. (For much more on that, check this out.)Now, wait. We did learn something we didn't already know: The "speculation that he may not have paid any taxes from the mid-1990s" is false. This is a big pro-Trump data point. Maybe all those other years are different and the 2005 return was leaked by pro-Trump forces. But it's the data point we've got, and speculation now will be that Trump paid his taxes in the normal way: using the tax code as it is written to take advantage of the incentives and breaks and paying what the law said he owed.
The 2005 tax return shows that the latter supposition is simply not true. Trump paid $38 million in taxes, not $0. And the return also suggests that Trump, as he said, did what he could to lower his tax burden. He paid an effective tax rate of 25 percent, far below the top tax bracket — 35 percent — for individuals at that time.
In short: We didn't learn anything we don't already know about Trump. Yes, he is very wealthy. Yes, he — like virtually all very wealthy people — looks for holes in the tax code to lower his overall taxable income.
These are not "holes" in the code. The code is deliberately written by human beings who are trying to achieve something, and these people should be held responsible for what they have done. "Looking for holes" makes the taxpayer sound like the agent of unfairness.
Posts
152 comments:
It's entertaining to watch Trump play chess, while the resistance plays checkers.
Dopey Cilizza should know that no one pays an effective tax rate equal to the top tax rate of 35%.
They relied, quite a lot, on David Cay Johnston, to interpret the 2005 tax return pages.
David Cay Johnston is one of the nastiest little left-wing hacks in all of media.
The great people at the Media Research Center took Johnston down, here:
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/tom-blumer/2011/07/15/
Johnston occupies a weird self-promoting place in the media. He's never held down a job for very long (although he has a long list of places where he's had brief connections -- the Detroit News and Free Press, the New York Times, his ill-fated time at Reuters, etc.); I am not at all sure that he's completed a college degree. He for sure has never gotten a degree of any kind in economics, and he's never worked in finance or any economic-related field.
Dopey Cilizza needs only look at his own return to figure that out.
My guess is Trump planted that tasty little seed and Maddow watered it furiously. One of the greatest trolling acts of all time.
Carly Fiorina’s dad Judge Joseph Sneed told her that the tax code is how the government asserts control. It is also how politicians get votes and campaign contributions.
This is the most terrifying take-down of David Cay Johnston, by the late, great Cathy Seipp: David Cay Johnston Explains It All.
IIRC one of the pleasures of reading the Tax Code in school was the Spy vs. Spy nature of it: the way reading various subsections in a particular section could tell a story about clever tricks that had been tried, and then blocked by the legislature.
People who talk a lot about holes or loopholes probably never read any of the statutory language they might be referring to. (Unless you want to call very deliberate things like the home mortgage deduction, or non-recognition rules, loopholes.)
If there was something to the lie, that Donald Trump was hiding something in his tax returns, Obamas corrupt IRS fifth amendment taker Lois Lerner or her boss IRS Commissioner John Koskinen would have found it and leaked it already.
The fine folks at Fox News last night had their knickers in a twist over the provenance of the two pages of Trump's 2005 federal tax returns.
Sean Hannity went out of his way to imply that people at the IRS leaked it. With no supporting evidence.
Why? The IRS has ALL of Trump's returns. If a well-connected IRS official wanted to leak, there is a lot more that could be leaked.
In fact, there are a lot of places where Trump's tax returns may reside. I see no reason to presume any particular source is guilty of the leak.
But no matter what, I well remember the Wikileaks of the DNC/Podesta mailbox emails. And what the Trump side of the presidential race said about all of that... Who cares where they came from? The point is that they are true! They aren't fake emails! The Dems really wrote those emails! That fact, the fact that they are all true, is what is important!...
I had fun last night watching Maddow and O'Donnell breathlessly press their lame case. Certainly could't do it nightly, but it was instructive and amusing.
Maddow has had her Geraldo's "safe opening" moment. Except that she knew for sure that nothing was in the safe.
Blogger David Begley said..."Carly Fiorina’s dad Judge Joseph Sneed told her that the tax code is how the government asserts control. It is also how politicians get votes and campaign contributions."
That's exactly what it's for. A tremendous amount of swamp-draining could be accomplished by implementing the flat tax.
It was my understanding the tax return was identified as "client copy".
Three choices:
1) Trump released it to watch lefies make fools of themselves.
2) Someone in Trump's camp released it (see #1).
3) The IRS leaked it and put "client copy" on the bottom of it so as not to appear they leaked it.
The moral of the story? Lefties, in this case Rachel Madcow, continue to toss boomerangs at Trump.
The flat tax will never happen. Not enough opportunity for graft.
Looking for 'holes in the tax code' is like looking for holes in mountains to drive through, right?
One would have never expected it from the tone of the MSM coverage since President Trump began his entry into politics but apparently Trump lives a life devoid of criminality and without the immorality sometimes accompanying great wealth – otherwise it would’ve been leaked by Obama by now.
This illegally obtained tax summary is the ONLY physical piece of evidence offered for ALL the many unsupported lies about Trump and guess what, readers - it only proves that Trump is a wealthy and that the MSM lied about him. This is the BEST they have! Sad! THAT I can tell you.
Ann,
I'm going to use your "Tunnels" reference as a segue to question asked in last nights post.
Which park was you and Meade's favorite: Zion or Bryce? What trails did you do.
I'm taking the family to Utah in April and you inspired me to visit one or both of these parks.
Gee. Documents show up mysteriously in a plain brown envelope. Hack passes them on to a lefty journalist. This provides degree of separation mainstream media needs to plaster the documents all over the front page.
I think we've heard this story before.
I saw a clip of the Maddow show this morning. The guy she had on with her stated that he thought that Trump may have leaked the tax data himself, because, I am paraphrasing but I think I am fairly close because the statement really struck me as stupid and indicative of total cluelessness, "Trump doesn't think the way we do, he isn't aware that something could make him look bad."
The leftists that are not total morons all look like this this morning.
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=qMANSVfx&id=6FA934EA44A273A5350756E3B59D8F00FB479157&q=cpt+picard+facepalm&simid=608044650411918304&selectedIndex=4&qpvt=cpt+picard+facepalm&ajaxhist=0
Blogger Susan said..."The flat tax will never happen. Not enough opportunity for graft."
That's exactly why we need it but yeah, I ain't holding my breath.
or like this
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=GLhB9Yu6&id=1A3C6183ED2270257DFBCE29EB64872C719E59E4&q=cpt+picard+facepalm+double&simid=607998247576340012&selectedIndex=1&ajaxhist=0
These are not "holes" in the code. The code is deliberately written by human beings who are trying to achieve something, and these people should be held responsible for what they have done. "Looking for holes" makes the taxpayer sound like the agent of unfairness.
Thank you for writing this so I didn't have to.
They publish these effective tax rates paid by politicians (Obama 19%, Sanders 13%, Trump 25%), but even though I have very expensive accountants do my taxes, I pay double or triple those percentages. I must be in the wrong line of work. I just makes things people use, and create jobs, when I could be saving a lot of money simply telling lies and wearing ties. Where is my tie? I haven't seen it for years. What's the style now, wide, narrow, bow, knotted rope? Is there a web site I can go to to learn how to be a politician, maybe community college class? They seem to do the same things I see on Jerry Springer's show. Maybe I can just study that.
"This illegally obtained tax summary is the ONLY physical piece of evidence offered for ALL the many unsupported lies about Trump and guess what, readers - it only proves that Trump is a wealthy and that the MSM lied about him. This is the BEST they have! Sad! THAT I can tell you."
One of O'Donnell's lame claims last night is Trump is a liar because he claims he pays "hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes" yet $38M is less than $100M.
Tax loop holes and pussy.
If you make enough money, they'll let you...
These are not "holes" in the code. The code is deliberately written by human beings who are trying to achieve something, . . .
Taxpayers get to take advantage of those "holes" by responding exactly as the lawmakers wish. The tax laws have incentives deliberately written into them. Everything went according to plan.
Does Maddow always yammer and repeat herself like Rain Man or was she having an exceptionally difficult time with the cognitive dissonance last night?
Something else: I'll have to wait for the transcript but both Maddow and Johnson displayed so much lying behavior and speech patterns they could have been poster children for Pamela Meyer's TED Talk on Spotting Liars.
"But no matter what, I well remember the Wikileaks of the DNC/Podesta mailbox emails. And what the Trump side of the presidential race said about all of that...
""Who cares where they came from? The point is that they are true! They aren't fake emails! The Dems really wrote those emails! That fact, the fact that they are all true, is what is important!...""
That's right, and this leak proved the left lied with no evidence, and that Trump had the truth on his side all along. Funny how that keeps happening over and over, and how some continue to call Trump dishonest while still believing the Press.
even though I have very expensive accountants do my taxes, I pay double or triple those percentages
If you are paying 50% in federal taxes you need to get new accountants. Cause I don't care how expensive they are, they are crap.
We learned that Trump's regular income tax was quite low due to a huge write off and he payed most of his taxes under the alternative income tax. That's something for tax policy wonks. Trump has said he wants to eliminate the alternative minimum tax, so that's also something that can be used against the repeal effort.
But does it pass the kill a guy on 5th Avenue standard that we're being trained to accept for Trump? No.
A 25% tax rate on $150 million in 2005 indicates he wasn't using the 90s NOL carryover to any significant degree a decade later. This is very significant news and it's amazing MSNBC revealed it. If he paid a 25% effective tax rate - more than Buffett and most others - in 2005, it sounds like he's paying an appropriate level of taxation.
I genuinely have to wonder if this was a great ploy planted by Trump.
Ron Winkleheimer said...
I saw a clip of the Maddow show this morning. The guy she had on with her stated that he thought that Trump may have leaked the tax data himself, because, I am paraphrasing but I think I am fairly close because the statement really struck me as stupid and indicative of total cluelessness, "Trump doesn't think the way we do, he isn't aware that something could make him look bad."
Not a stupid statement at all, there's plenty of PR types out there who'd tell you that there is no such thing as bad publicity, it's all just publicity. I truly believe Trump thinks that way.
If anybody watched MSNBC last night as I did (I switched from FNC to MSNBC when Trace Gallagher did a spot on Tucker Carlson's show, and explained that at that moment, the return was being discussed on the Rachel Maddow Show... so, uh, I immediately changed channels, to MSNBC), you may have seen Chris Hayes offer up a rather interesting side comment.
Hayes noted that thus far, the Trump excuse for not releasing copies of his tax returns is that he has been under audit. That is of course not a good excuse; being under audit does not mean you can't publicly release copies. And moreover, Trump's lawyers have artfully said that Trump's tax returns have been under "continuous review," and not audit. Asked to release any/all of his audit letters from the IRS, Trump hasn't done it.
But even Trump's b.s. excuse for not releasing his returns falls apart this year, when he files his 2016 tax returns. Because on the day that they are filed, they won't be under audit. What might the excuse be, then, for not releasing copies?
TreeJoe
That means Trump earned income to use up his NOLs. That's the real story.
NPR was pretty funny on this story this morning.
Their tease was "Trump tax return exposed" but their story was careful to note that only a couple of pages of one return from more than a decade ago are out. Their designated expert highlighted the fact that Trump COULD have paid "only 3.5%" in taxes, "well below the rate poor Americans pay" but because of the AMT he paid much more. They quoted the 25% rate but didn't say "38 million dollars" even once. Their next teaser said something about "documents show Trump did pay some taxes" which made me giggle--$38M is "some," yeah.
Nowhere any any of the stories I heard (3 total, I think) did they mention that these documents were leaked, or possibly obtained illegally. They just said something like "journalist received" to describe the origin. Maybe it's me being sensitive, but I seem to recall when discussing the WikiLeaks stuff on Clinton and the Dems that NPR would often say "leaked documents" or "illegally-obtained emails show..." or something like that.
Oh well. "Some taxes!" Funny.
Nothing in there about financial ties to the Russians. I guess we don't have to worry about conflicts of interest anymore.
"We learned that Trump's regular income tax was quite low due to a huge write off..."
Trump 25%
Obama 19%
Sanders 13%
"If you are paying 50% in federal taxes..."
You are right sir!
But with California at 13.3% on top of Federal I do, so I have a solution to that part: leave the state, which is currently happening with a lot of us out here.
"Trump tax return exposed"
Trump exposed himself to Rachel Maddow?
The one thing that I haven't seen yet, is any analysis of what the tax return means about Trump's net worth.
Do most people of his purported net worth ($4 billion? $5 billion? $8 billion) have income in the neighborhood of $150 million?
When I heard about Trump's declared 2005 income, and reflected on what he was doing at the time (running "The Apprentice" on NBC), thought that the guy was just a standard celebrity. Trump's income was pretty much what I imagined for any star of a top tv show. Tiger Woods, by way of another kind of example, had an estimated $84 million of income in 2005.
Trump is a wealthy man, no doubt. But so are lots of movie stars, athletes and other celebrities. Celebrities like Trump.
But even Trump's b.s. excuse for not releasing his returns falls apart this year, when he files his 2016 tax returns. Because on the day that they are filed, they won't be under audit
This is a continuing lame reasoning the left refuses to let die.
So here it is again:
1) If you have more than $1 Million in income your return is automatically flagged by the IRS for a desk audit. Not the full rubber glove treatment but someone at IRS puts eyes on your return. Given this new evidence the probability Trumps fails to meet that threshold annually is quite unreasonable.
2) Trump's legal team and financial counsel is doing what every prudent and responsible counsel does by recommending Trump not disclose the details of his returns out of an abundance of caution. Risks of doing so include but not limited to revealing trade secrets and unreasonable scrutiny of Trump and his tax preparers.
That's where it begins and ends. The public is free to decide if is this is deceptive or okay but Trump has no obligation to either disclose or not disclose.
"lifelong republican" Chuck: "Asked to release any/all of his audit letters from the IRS, Trump hasn't done it."
Why should he play yours and the rest of the Lefts game?
You don't like it? Tough.
They also tried to make a big deal of Trump in AMT but as the CPA/MST wife says, 'everyone in New York is in AMT!'.
steve uhr: "Nothing in there about financial ties to the Russians. I guess we don't have to worry about conflicts of interest anymore"
Since you and your lefty pals took a full 8 years off from "worry", it shouldn't be much of a strain.
Ridiculous. As I understand it they had the two pages of the 1040 personal tax return. In order to actually interpret that "personal" return you would also need all the schedules and other forms. Where are the K-1s. Schedule A. Schedule B. Schedule D. if applicable.....1120S ? 1065? BFD!
Plus you cannot possibly understand Trump's tax position without the accompanying Corporate returns and other subsidiaries as well as Trust or Charitable Trust returns.
The people who think this is a big deal probably only file a 1040ez and have H&R Block do it for them. As Gruber said. Economic ignoramuses.
I think Trump released this, watched it backfire in Maddow's face and is is currently laughing his ass off.
Drago said...
"lifelong republican" Chuck: "Asked to release any/all of his audit letters from the IRS, Trump hasn't done it."
Why should he play yours and the rest of the Lefts game?
You don't like it? Tough.
And you don't like my complaints about Trump?
Tough.
Personally, I think Trump is lying about all of this. I think that he could release copies of his tax returns, at no personal tax jeopardy. But he won't, because there is something else that is embarrassing about them. What it is, I do not know, but I am simply curious.
Most people are just like me. In a January WaPo/ABC poll, 74% of Americans think that Trump should release copies of his returns.
Next we're going to hear the lamestream media drumbeat for Trump's tax returns from 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016. Unless he releases ALL the returns he's a NAZI WAR CRIMINAL!!!!
There is no way to spaz out like an SJW in a text box. Just imagine Trigglypuff shaking in fury.
Dust Bunny Queen said...
Ridiculous. As I understand it they had the two pages of the 1040 personal tax return. In order to actually interpret that "personal" return you would also need all the schedules and other forms. Where are the K-1s. Schedule A. Schedule B. Schedule D. if applicable.....1120S ? 1065? BFD!
I don't think Trump critics would disagree. I wouldn't. We need to see the entire return, to judge it. Which is precisely why all of the returns, in their entirety, should be released.
It is also why Trump's gigantic garbage-dump of his "net worth" statements were useless. Contrary to Trump's claims on the subject.
Chuck said...Do most people of his purported net worth ($4 billion? $5 billion? $8 billion) have income in the neighborhood of $150 million?
I suspect people who make/made most of their wealth in real estate will have rather "lumpy" income histories, Chuck. I doubt a single year or two of returns/income histories will be all that instructive--if you make your money out of long term projects and big sales (as opposed to steady income from a very high salary) then a very small sample won't be useful.
The logic of that seems pretty obvious to me.
You sell off a resort one year and pocket a few hundred million. The next year you keep working on your next building and collect a bunch of lease payments, so maybe you don't net that much. Some years you sell off a hotel or two at a big loss. Over a few decades you pocket a few hundred million, sock that away in a trust or two, and your earnings year-to-year hovers in the $100-$200M range. Seems plausible, no?
I don't know what the guy's worth. He obviously wants to say he's worth a huge amount, and to get to that number he uses the most generous valuation he possibly can. He has a big ego, no doubt about it. That seems to annoy you, Chuck, no doubt about that either. fine. I think you'll need to do better than pointing at one year of income to make any kind of a case that his net worth isn't as high as has been claimed, though.
All U.S. presidents are automatically audited every year, as prescribed by a guideline in the Internal Revenue Service manual in place for presidents and vice presidents since the 1970s. Trump could urge Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin to change that provision, legal experts said. Trump has not said whether he would do so.
I loved this from the WAPO story by Philip Rucker and Drew Harwell. Do you suppose anyone reported that Obama could urge his Treasury Secretary to change the rule although he had not done so and they had no information suggesting he would?
These people are so controlled by their bias they can't even recognize it.
I also saw the Daily Mail and others wrote Trump had 250 million in income but the NOL deduction eliminated "all but 150 million" of it. Doesn't this construction imply the overwhelming majority is impacted? Were they so convinced this was a big deal they lost their perspective? Or is it a conscious presentation applied to everything they dislike?
More great Johnston-bashing memories here. Johnston himself puts in an appearance, as do I.
Flat tax wouldnt simplify much I think, not for the likes of Trump, or a lot of much smaller fish. There is way more in it than tax rates.
Chuck what is your point? Why should Trump release his tax records? He isn't pretending to be a class warrior. Let the class warriors disclose theirs if only to show their hypocrisy. As long as Trump paid one dollar more than you in income taxes he paid his fair share. So unless you have credible evidence the man is engaging in tax evasion kindly knock off the snark.
Speaking of loopholes, Maddow really is oblivious to her hypocrisy. Just think of all the perks she gets from NBC that are worth a lot of money but are not taxed as imputed income.
So how many citizens and non-citizens had their tax burden covered by just one man: Donald Trump.
2005 Total income tax in 2005 = $1 Trillion
Population of US 2005 = 300 million
Taxes collected per capita = $3,333
$38 million / $3,333 = 11,401 people paid for by a single man.
Plus all the state taxes, payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, etc, etc
Plus all the jobs created by Trump companies, and all the taxes paid by those employees.
Plus all the associated jobs and income from people and businesses able to operate out of the buildings built.
Just say: "Thanks, you crazy dude."
Hoodlum;
About Trump's net worth; it never much bothered me, one way or another. But a brief mention in a book about Trump, in which author Tim O'Brien estimated Trump's net worth at $150 to $200 million, instead of the billions Trump claimed at the time. So he sued O'Brien and the publisher, for Five Billion Dollars. Dr. Evil would be so happy.
And then, Trump gave one of the great comedy depositions of all time. And spent a million dollars or more, only to lose in the end. Case dismissed.
""Looking for holes" makes the taxpayer sound like the agent of unfairness." Not "the taxpayer" but anyone in the crosshairs of prog prosecutors or the MSM. The IRS, of course, would never target, or leak information about, any "taxpayer" for merely political reasons.
Chuck said...About Trump's net worth; it never much bothered me, one way or another.
You don't care one way or the other, you just bring it up here, unprompted, and imply that this latest news can be used to attack Trump's prior assertions. But you don't really care--doesn't mean anything to you.
Transparent.
In regards to Trump's net worth - he's 70 years old and reports INCOME of $150 million when he was ~58 years old - that would be mostly comprised of dividends, capital gains, and various deals. As of 2001, his CEO salary was ~$1.5 million so its not like his income is being derived from that side. I'm not aware of a significant single source of income that year except the sale of two significant real estate holdings.
To put this in perspective, to earn $30 million in dividend returns in a single year you'd likely need to have $1-1.5 billion in strong dividend stocks.
A 12 year old income tax of $150 million strongly supports a multi-billionaire net worth today.
Usually don't like to use Wikipedia, but this seems to be a easier read of the how the AMT has grown to include many more taxpayers than originally intended. Interesting that a lot of the blame for the expansion is due to the Bush tax cuts & that Obama tried to correct it. But when Trump tries to correct it, I am sure that the only message will be that it is to benefit him and the "rich".
Although the AMT was originally enacted to target 155 high-income households, it now affects millions of families each year. The number of households that pay the tax has increased significantly in the last decade: In 1997, for example, 605,000 taxpayers paid the AMT; by 2008, the number of affected taxpayers jumped to 3.9 million, or about 4% of individual taxpayers. A total of 27% of households that paid the AMT in 2008 had adjusted gross income of $200,000 or less.
The primary reason for AMT growth is the fact that the AMT exemption, unlike regular income tax items, was not indexed to inflation before 2013. This means that income thresholds did not keep pace with the cost of living. As a result, the tax has affected an increasing number of households each year, as workers' incomes adjusted to inflation and surpassed AMT eligibility levels. While not indexed for inflation, Congress often passed short-term increases in exemption amounts. The Tax Policy Center (a research group) estimated that if the AMT had been indexed to inflation in 1985, and if the Bush tax cuts had not gone into effect, only 300,000 taxpayers—instead of their projected 27 million—would be subject to the tax in 2010. President Barack Obama included indexing the AMT to inflation in his FY2011 budget proposal, which did not pass. AMT raised $26 billion of $1,031 billion total individual income tax in 2008.
Another important reason for the recent expansion of the AMT is the effect of the 2001–2006 Bush tax cuts. The tax cuts decreased marginal tax rates for all income tax brackets without making corresponding changes to AMT rates. The lower tax liabilities triggered AMT eligibility for many households. Economists often refer to this as the "take-back effect" of the Bush tax cuts.
As the AMT has expanded, the inequalities created by the structure of the tax have become more apparent. Taxpayers are not allowed to deduct state and local taxes in calculating their AMT liability; as a result, taxpayers who live in states with high income tax rates are up to 7 times more likely to pay the AMT than those who live in states with lower income tax rates. Similarly, taxpayers are not allowed to deduct personal exemptions in calculating their AMT liability; as a result, taxpayers with large families—and specifically families with 3 or more children—are more likely to pay the AMT than smaller families
"Which park was you and Meade's favorite: Zion or Bryce? What trails did you do."
We went to 5 National Parks. I'd rank my enjoyment of them in this order:
1. Zion
2. Arches
3. Death Valley
4. Bryce
5. Capitol Reef
Capitol Reef was experienced only as a drive-through with a couple stops at great vantage points.
Zion was most enjoyable to me in part because I like WATER. There's a river to walk beside. (See the next post.) There's something called a "desert swamp." I also loved the accommodations in the lodge inside the park, with a balcony looking right out onto some really glorious rocks.
We also stayed inside the park at Bryce, where you could walk right out and onto the finest trail (Navajo) and at Death Valley (where the accommodations were the nicest, complete with a natural spring-fed swimming pool, but where you needed to drive to get to trails).
Arches does not have accommodations inside the park. The actual sights to be seen at Arches are the best of all the parks I've listed, but you've got to do some strenuous hiking and watch out for the heat and sun.
I preferred the protection of the water and the canyon at Zion.
Maybe the nicest thing we did was go out in the dark in Death Valley to lie in sleeping bags at Zabriskie Point and look at the stars and then the sunrise.
cubanbob said...
Chuck what is your point? Why should Trump release his tax records?
Let me count the ways:
1. So we know if his advocacy on tax reform is self-dealing.
2. So we know his true sources of income, for national security reasons.
3. So we know his true sources of income, for conflict of interest reasons.
4. So we can appraise his own claims of net worth; statements that Trump has notoriously raised on his own.
5. So we can appraise his own claims that he has given "millions" to charity, and so we know which charities.
6. So we can compare his tax returns with his filed FEC paperwork.
7. So we can fundamentally understand how Trump has treated his own federal tax obligations; whether he has been honest with the IRS.
These are just the ones that came to mind in a matter of minutes. I expect that there are more. I'm not a tax policy expert.
I don't think Trump critics would disagree. I wouldn't. We need to see the entire return, to judge it. Which is precisely why all of the returns, in their entirety, should be released.
And they won't be released. Nor should they because his returns include personal information of many many other people. Personal, private information. Other corporate owners, partners, shareholders, employees. None of those people are going to assent to having their "business put in the street".
My point is that people are asking for documents that prove nothing. That people are not able to even understand what they are seeing when it is part of the puzzle. If they were given the whole multi dimensional puzzle they wouldn't have the slightest idea of what they are seeing. The majority of the people in the US are confounded by a 1040EZ. Does anyone think that they could possibly understand something as complex as a total tax return package of a Buffet, Soros or Trump?
This ignorance only gives the media more room to spin fake stories and distort.
They also shouldn't be released because eff you none of your business. It isn't a law. It is a convenience.
Hoodlum Doodlum: What you said (to Chuck) about lumpy income stream. Also, on net worth: I believe Trump conducts his business through a network of (mostly) privately-held corporations and partnerships, so there is no easy "mark to market" method to value them. Outside of selling them for *cash* (as opposed to, say, new equity interests in the acquiring entity) it is never going to be a simple, clear, solid number.
And, as you note, whatever the number is, it is lumpy. One year it may be up, another year it is down. Especially real estate. And extra especially one-off gigantic real estate projects such as his.
Quick: what is the market value of the right to use that big golden T on your building?
I resent paying taxes when the rich don't pay their fair share. I pay $6,000 in property taxes for what? To pay to fund the lousy public schools? Why is that the problem of the homeowner? Why is it MY problem. If you can't afford to pay to send your kids to school, then don't have kids. Abort them. Rethuglicans who oppose abortion are part of the problem. You want to force the poor to give birth, then you want me to pay for their kids schooling and health care, and even feed them. Get lost!
Betsy DeVos want to privatize schools. I'm fine with that, but send the education bill, i.e., invoice, to yourself and Trump, et al, a couple of stinking billionaires, who are overflowing with money. Let me keep most of the $6,000 that I'm stuck paying, so I can take a fun trip like Ms. Althouse is doing before she dies before I die.
Hoodlum Doodlum: What you said (to Chuck) about lumpy income stream. Also, on net worth: I believe Trump conducts his business through a network of (mostly) privately-held corporations and partnerships, so there is no easy "mark to market" method to value them. Outside of selling them for *cash* (as opposed to, say, new equity interests in the acquiring entity) it is never going to be a simple, clear, solid number.
And, as you note, whatever the number is, it is lumpy. One year it may be up, another year it is down. Especially real estate. And extra especially one-off gigantic real estate projects such as his.
Quick: what is the market value of the right to use that big golden T on your building?
Chuck said...
We need to see the entire return, to judge it.
3/15/17, 10:18 AM
Um, no you don't. This falls into the category of "none-ya".
TreeJoe said...
...
...
A 12 year old income tax of $150 million strongly supports a multi-billionaire net worth today.
But he was a big tv star at that time; making the better part of $150 million from that, and from marketing the Trump brand.
You seem to presume that he was just an investor; I don't think he was much of an investor at all. Even without his tax returns (which would clear up a lot), I think your point automatically fails based on what we know about Trump from what is public.
$38 million / $3,333 = 11,401 people paid for by a single man.
Plus all the state taxes, payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, etc, etc
Plus all the jobs created by Trump companies, and all the taxes paid by those employees.
Plus all the associated jobs and income from people and businesses able to operate out of the buildings built.
Just say: "Thanks, you crazy dude."
There is the business man mentality for you :-D
All the associated taxes paid not on his personal income tax return, but on the various corporate and business taxes on Trump's businesses and every other business that got income from him and was able to employ people and pay more taxes.
Chuck and others who are so narrow minded and focused on "getting the rich" miss the big picture and the magnification effect of an entity like Trump creating an engine of income, work, prosperity and taxes.
Same people who are decrying the idea of Trump's infrastructure spending, like that money is going to fall into a black hole. Instead it will be falling into the pockets of companies who will be doing the work, employees of those companies, suppliers of goods and services and all the people who will be benefiting by the spending done. Taxes returned to the government from all of that spending. All the way down to the tips received by Rosie the waitress at the diner where the workers are eating breakfast.
Todd said...
Chuck said...
We need to see the entire return, to judge it.
3/15/17, 10:18 AM
Um, no you don't. This falls into the category of "none-ya".
Well, then The Donald had better be r-e-a-l-l-y nice to Congress, because they have the power to order up all the records with a single vote.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/congress-has-the-power-to-obtain-and-release-trumps-tax-returns/2017/02/07/aa53254c-ea63-11e6-80c2-30e57e57e05d_story.html?utm_term=.0272670709dc
Chuck at 10:15: "But even Trump's b.s. excuse for not releasing his returns falls apart this year, when he files his 2016 tax returns. Because on the day that they are filed, they won't be under audit. What might the excuse be, then, for not releasing copies?"
Chuck at 10:18: "We need to see the entire return, to judge it. Which is precisely why all of the returns, in their entirety, should be released."
Chuck answers the first question three minutes later. This may come as a yuge shock to Chuck, but no one submits tax returns so that Chuck can "judge" them. He submits tax returns to comform to the law so that he will stay out of jail. All those people who want an opportunity to "judge" his returns are focused on bringing Trump down in one manner or another. Why should Trump give them anything? If his 2016 return showed Trump gave a trillion to charity, funded the cure for cancer and paid off the national debt, Chuck would be frothing at the mouth that he didn't buy any girl scout cookies last year. When your judges are pissants and you have the law on your side, it's best to just tell the pissants to piss off. And that's the reason he shouldn't release them.
Chuck and others who are so narrow minded and focused on "getting the rich" miss the big picture and the magnification effect of an entity like Trump creating an engine of income, work, prosperity and taxes.
Huh? I don't care about "getting the rich." When have I ever written anything remotely like that?
You presume that "Trump Critic" = "Socialist".
How stupid can it get?
Bago is a California resident and taxpayer so his combined fed and state effective tax rate could certainly be higher than 35%.
Well this is a start for him to start acting presidential and release all his tax forms as others have done.
Chuck said...
Todd said...
Chuck said...
We need to see the entire return, to judge it.
3/15/17, 10:18 AM
Um, no you don't. This falls into the category of "none-ya".
Well, then The Donald had better be r-e-a-l-l-y nice to Congress, because they have the power to order up all the records with a single vote.
3/15/17, 10:51 AM
And in some instances, I am sure a judge could order them released. So what. The point is that Trump is under no obligation to release them. Just like Obama is under no obligation to release his college transcripts or Kerry his DD214. Him releasing those was and is not a requirement for office. Get over it.
That all said, I think I could get behind requiring a politician to release their tax returns. At least at the Fed level. If you make your money from my taxes, I should get to see where else you get your money from. When politicians go from middle class to millionaire on a politician's salary, THAT needs to be disclosed.
Why should Trump give them anything? If his 2016 return showed Trump gave a trillion to charity, funded the cure for cancer and paid off the national debt, Chuck would be frothing at the mouth that he didn't buy any girl scout cookies last year.
Bullshit, strawman, baseless trashtalk.
That isn't my view. I never wrote anything like that. Go ahead and choke on your frothy nonsense.
The National Review, and the Wall Street Journal editors all called on Trump to release copies of his returns. Not exactly the bleeding-heart crowd.
Chuck wrote: But even Trump's b.s. excuse for not releasing his returns falls apart this year, when he files his 2016 tax returns. Because on the day that they are filed, they won't be under audit. What might the excuse be, then, for not releasing copies?
Let's see yours, Chuck. Trump is under NO LEGAL OR MORAL obligation to release his tax returns, but evidently, you think otherwise. What's your "b.s. excuse" for not making your tax returns public? Here's what you must do to gain our respect: Scan your returns and upload them to Pinterest, then post the link in Althouse's cafés. You have until midnight April 15.
So we know if his advocacy on tax reform is self-dealing.
Why should I care if he benefits from it. Shouldn't the metric be "is it fair and doesn't stifle enterprise" not "a guy I don't like could benefit from it?"
Well this is a start for him to start acting presidential and release all his tax forms as others have done.
Which "others"?
If Trump was cheating on his taxes I'm sure our non-partisan, crack team of IRS bureaucrats would have found a way to expose it by now.
Quaestor: Reminds me of the college transcript kerfuffle. Remember when Trump was demanding to see Obama's college transcripts and passport info? 2012, wasn't it? And Trump was offering a $5 million charity donation to anybody who supplied them? And then Trump was asked to provide copies of his own transcripts? And Trump's response through his consigliere Michael Cohen was that he was not running for anything...
Because he wasn't. At the time. But when the time came, Trump's campaign called the request silly.
Trump, let's remember, said during this last campaign, that he will release copies of all of his audited returns when the audit is done. I want to know when that happens.
Hopefully before somebody primaries Trump in 2020.
bagoh20 said... [hush][hide comment]
So how many citizens and non-citizens had their tax burden covered by just one man: Donald Trump.
2005 Total income tax in 2005 = $1 Trillion
Population of US 2005 = 300 million
Taxes collected per capita = $3,333
$38 million / $3,333 = 11,401 people paid for by a single man.
Plus all the state taxes, payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, etc, etc
Plus all the jobs created by Trump companies, and all the taxes paid by those employees.
Good talking points. Hope it shows up on twitter, facebook, radio and tv.
The code is deliberately written by human beings who are trying to achieve something, and these people should be held responsible for what they have done.
A responsible politician? Not since Mac Mathias retired in 1987.
Chuck said:
A lot of stupid stuff.
You haven't been this far off since threatening to squeze Van Susterns tits, "to show her how it feels" SAD
Personally, I can't think of a more useless piece of information than how much someone pays in taxes. In politics it's just there for gotcha purposes.
@wendybar: +1
Chuck
I think he paid something like $38M in capital gains: suggesting that he is something of an investor.
This is why the press lost in 2016.
Trump is going to be in Detroit today. Secret Service--keep an eye on Chuck.
Chuck said...
cubanbob said...
Chuck what is your point? Why should Trump release his tax records?
Let me count the ways:
1. So we know if his advocacy on tax reform is self-dealing.
Wow! I voted for him to lower my tax rates. Is that a conflict of interest?
2. So we know his true sources of income, for national security reasons.
Just because you think ill of the man isn't reason to assume he is guilty of being a Democrat or a criminal ( I repeat myself). Show me one candidate that ran in 2016 that one couldn't plausibly hang your BS innuendo with.
3. So we know his true sources of income, for conflict of interest reasons.
Same as above. By the way both assertions of yours rules out any Democrat that ran in 2016.
4. So we can appraise his own claims of net worth; statements that Trump has notoriously raised on his own.
Why is this important other than your prurient interest?
5. So we can appraise his own claims that he has given "millions" to charity, and so we know which charities.
Taxes aren't charity. Besides what business is it of yours which charities he gave to? Indeed I'm of the opinion the most sincere form of giving charitable contributions is to do so privately (but I concede that probably isn't Trump's style).
6. So we can compare his tax returns with his filed FEC paperwork.
What for? Obama raised campaign funds by the millions illegally yet nothing was done about it. So did the Clintons. The paperwork is done under oath, if you have credible evidence of wrongdoing, show it. Then Trump would have a criminal issue. I suppose these things are only a problem when a Republican gets elected. I would like to see Hillary Clinton's information, Barack Obama's information and Harry Reid's information. All three of them have plausible criminal income.
7. So we can fundamentally understand how Trump has treated his own federal tax obligations; whether he has been honest with the IRS.
He paid his taxes. He presumably the least amount he could. If he didn't then he would be an idiot. The IRS has plenty of methods to check the veracity of the returns. On million dollar plus returns, they always do so.
These are just the ones that came to mind in a matter of minutes. I expect that there are more. I'm not a tax policy expert.
Well that's certainly true, you are no tax expert. The policy reference is a give away to your ideology.
Trump is under NO LEGAL OR MORAL obligation to release his tax returns,
It is true he is under no legal obligation, but I would consider keeping a promise he repeatedly made is a moral obligation. He said numerous times that when the audit he claimed he was under was complete he would release his taxes (even though there was nothing to prevent him from releasing them while they were under audit). Of course, he never provided any proof he was under audit, so he might have lying all along.
And one the most interesting things his taxes would reveal would be the names and involvement of his foreign partners in his businesses.
"In politics it's just there for gotcha purposes."
Yes, and the only ethical claim on gotcha info is fairness in tit-for-tat.
A soi-disant lifetime Republican Michigan election lawyer said...
We need to see the entire return, to judge it.
3/15/17, 10:18 AM
Um, no you don't. This falls into the category of "none-ya".
Well, then The Donald had better be r-e-a-l-l-y nice to Congress, because they have the power to order up all the records with a single vote.
3/15/17, 10:51 AM
And President Trump, with equivalent legitimacy, would have the *power* to send a four-man team to the home of everyone who voted for that bill. And yours if he can somehow get Blogger to give up your identity.
So you should be r-e-a-l-l-y nice to President Trump, because if he killed you all (ESPECIALLY you), I'd vote for him twice.
BTW Unknown, if you find that scawy, good.
And one the most interesting things his taxes would reveal would be the names and involvement of his foreign partners in his businesses.
One note Freder. Give it up. You lost !
Remember when Trump was demanding to see Obama's college transcripts and passport info? 2012, wasn't it?
Has anyone ever seen them?
Or Obama's Khalidi speech ?
Or "Path to 9/11" again?
This tax issue is a red herring. I don't care a whit about it. I care about him getting job creation back on track so people can support themselves and their families as best as possible. He is demonstrably good at that. Nothing in his tax return matters.
"Well this is a start for him to start acting presidential..."
I think Nixon could have said it best if he said: "I'm the President, if I do it, it is presidential."
The even funnier part is that if the returns showed the precise thing the Left has claimed...nobody would have had much of a different opinion of him. His supporters still wouldn't give a shit.
But no matter what, I well remember the Wikileaks of the DNC/Podesta mailbox emails. And what the Trump side of the presidential race said about all of that... Who cares where they came from? The point is that they are true! They aren't fake emails! The Dems really wrote those emails! That fact, the fact that they are all true, is what is important!...
You're aware that leaking a government document is different than leaking private correspondence. The only comparable situation to the Podesta emails is the leaking of Palin's emails. And we saw how the media was outraged and demanded investigations of how they were leaked, right? Remember how outraged the MSM was?
But even Trump's b.s. excuse for not releasing his returns falls apart this year, when he files his 2016 tax returns. Because on the day that they are filed, they won't be under audit. What might the excuse be, then, for not releasing copies?
That's a bit much, Chuck. Release a return the moment they are filed? Why the hell should he?
Betsy DeVos want to privatize schools. I'm fine with that, but send the education bill, i.e., invoice, to yourself and Trump, et al, a couple of stinking billionaires, who are overflowing with money. Let me keep most of the $6,000 that I'm stuck paying, so I can take a fun trip like Ms. Althouse is doing before she dies before I die.
When you run through all of your Social Security in 18 months (which is what it takes for the highest payer to go through their contributions), don't come to us for further funding.
Without knowing the source of the income, it is hard to determine Trump's net worth in 2005. However, a 10% return on investments in 2005 would imply a base wealth of 1.5 billion, and believe me, 10% is an atypically high return for most investors in a given year.
If I had to make a guess, I would guess his net worth in 2005 was likely in the range of $500 million dollars to $2 billion. I feel like that range would be wide enough to capture the real number.
Yes, the big reveal back-fired on Maddow and all the anti-Trump people last night, which does make one want to believe Trump released this himself and deliberately picked Johnston.
However, having said that, I still think the most likely source is an anti-Trump person at his accountant's office. I am guessing you got the two pages simply because to have released more information might have allowed someone to pinpoint the source.
"Sean Hannity went out of his way to imply that people at the IRS leaked it. With no supporting evidence.
Why?"
-- To be fair to Sean Hannity and Fox, the IRS *does* have a history of leaking conservative information to liberals, be their donor lists or tax documents. So, it isn't impossible.
And it has been delicious watching Trump's critics here and elsewhere desperately spinning last night and this morning. Unknown was spinning so hard last night I thought she was going to fly apart.
I have written it many times- Trump's most visible critics lack an almost eerie amount of self-awareness. They literally can't tell when they are embarrassing themselves.
"Personally, I think Trump is lying about all of this. I think that he could release copies of his tax returns, at no personal tax jeopardy. But he won't, because there is something else that is embarrassing about them. What it is, I do not know, but I am simply curious."
-- That's the conspiracy theoryism that got us Birtherism.
Chuck wrote: Remember when Trump was demanding to see Obama's college transcripts and passport info?
So why is Obama hiding those transcripts? He's out of office and the revelations couldn't possibly harm him, yes? So why the secrecy? Democrats wouldn't care even if his grades were poor and didn't support his presidency of the Harvard Law Review. Republicans could laugh at Obama's supposed intellectual superiority, but they do that anyway, but they couldn't go on with the theorizing about his fraudulent use of grant monies and scholarships reserved for foreign students...
"Looking for holes" makes the taxpayer sound like the agent of unfairness.
Which is the reason why he said it.
Reason #4589 for Why You Got Trump In The First Place ...
For the last 3 years, my effective tax rate has been 20%. I guess that makes me a Tax Cheat, Out To Exploit The Loopholes!!!
These idiots beclown themselves daily, but the Trump tax returns thing has just fried their brains. You could almost hear Maddow's frontal lobes catching fire.
Last time I checked there is a difference between college transcripts and taxes- one can reveal an average mind, the other can reveal huge debt covered by German banks, and potential conflicts of interest from holdings etc. which is why we vet folks in office.
"We need to see the entire return, to judge it."
No, we don't. We need to know that the man obeyed the law in his tax filings. There are at least two reasons to assume that he did.
First, he certainly has tax advisors preparing his tax documents. Those people have sign to his tax returns as well. If they cheat or allow him to cheat, they are criminally liable. If I were a CPA, I wouldn't help a rich guy skate on his income reports because I would not want to go to prison and lose my certification.
Second, every large company's books are audited every single year by the IRS and by most state tax authorities. These agents get their glory from busting prominent taxpayers. If none of them has squawked yet, it's reasonable to assume the the laws have been followed.
The Trump tax issue is a fishing expedition to find out how much money he has or how much money he has made. I have a lot less money, and I pay every cent I owe in taxes. But I would not release my tax returns to anyone. This and my utter incompetence at politics assure that I will never, ever seek public office.
In another matter, I wish the IRS would at least try to root out the estimated 22 - 40 percent of fraudulent EITC claims. The program makes good sense, but widespread abuse is cutting its credibility.
Last time I checked there is a difference between college transcripts and taxes- one can reveal an average mind, the other can reveal huge debt covered by German banks, and potential conflicts of interest from holdings etc. which is why we vet folks in office.
There are already federal requirements requiring disclosure of financial investments.
"lifelong republican" Chuck: "Bullshit, strawman, baseless trashtalk."
Actually, it's spot on, completely logical, based on evidence straight-talk.
R/V: "..the other can reveal huge debt covered by German banks, and potential conflicts of interest from holdings etc. which is why we vet folks in office."
Sorry Ace. You and your lefty pal Chuck don't get to go on fishing expeditions just because you have a terminal case of Electoral Blues.
FullMoon said...
Chuck said:
A lot of stupid stuff.
You haven't been this far off since threatening to squeze Van Susterns tits, "to show her how it feels" SAD
3/15/17, 11:24 AM
You miserable lying sack of shit. I never wrote any such thing.
The abuse on these comments pages just gets worse and worse and is becoming an ever-larger detriment to commenting.
@Chuck, you can always leave, can't you? And, yeah, FWIW I agree that if Trump funded a cure for cancer and caused peace in the Middle East and used missiles to blast apart a meteor on track to create the next extinction-level event, you'd find something or another to kvetch about.
H8ers gotta H8
@Drago, what roesch is really sweeping past is the possibility that Obama's transcripts will reveal a somewhat less than average mind. Seriously, I've never seen an important politician more fundamentally ignorant of the world and how it works than Trump's immediate predecessor.
"The even funnier part is that if the returns showed the precise thing the Left has claimed...nobody would have had much of a different opinion of him. His supporters still wouldn't give a shit."
(I'm assuming the above statement is in reference to Trump and Trump supporters. Given that assumption:)
True. And who can blame them? Obama declares his administration to have been "scandal-free" and people say, WTF?! They aren't blind or stupid. We all know about fast and furious, the IRS scandal, Benghazi--to name a few-- that would have been considered major scandals if they had happened under a Republican President. But an incurious MSM merely yawned at them.
So can you really blame people on the right for saying "fuck it; as long as this guy is on my side I don't care what the Dems or the idiot media reveal about him." People are on to the fact that the left wants to throw away the rule book under Democrats but will throw it at Republicans, and people are saying, "Enough!" Is anyone really surprised by this outcome? The lawless executive overreach of the Obama administration coupled with the free pass he got from the media, is a big reason why we ended up with Trump.
BTW I'm not saying this is an attitude I completely agree with, but I understand it.
I don't think Chuck deserves the abuse he gets here. Eventually, he'll grok that he personifies every ludicrous stereotype of Donald Trump, and that's enough.
The abuse on these comments pages just gets worse and worse and is becoming an ever-larger detriment to commenting.
3/15/17, 1:28 PM
This way to the Egress!
You should decide whether or not to care what anyone thinks or says about you, and to post accordingly. After cultivating odium during your entire tenancy here, you seem surprised, and unhappy, to reap what you have sown.
Let me know if you need that explained further. Happy to help.
Chuck is having a meltdown because his beloved did not deliver the goods last night.
He is not the only one though it must be pointed out that some liberals are starting to get it.
"BTW I'm not saying this is an attitude I completely agree with, but I understand it."
-- Same here. I don't like Trump, in part because of his personal style and approach to problems, which seems to be, "I'm smart, I'll fix it by sheer force of fixingness." He's a lot better than Clinton, and tons better in the last few weeks than I thought he would be, but the simple fact is, for people on the right, when the left could call Romney Hitler and make fun of John McCain's physical inability to use keyboard, and then expect us to say, "Man, Trump's BEYOND THE PALE," they're just getting a collective shrug.
After all: Who wouldn't have been? They said the same thing about Mitt Romney -- the guy who literally sat with a child dying of cancer to help the kid write a will. That guy? That guy's Hitler to the left. So, what the hell does it mean if Trump's also Hitler?
RV
What does the phrase "huge debt covered by German banks" mean? Covered by? What on earth are you trying to say? That he has borrowed from Deutsche Bank? So what? What is different from a loan from Deutsche Bank or a loan from Wells Fargo? Most of his debt is senior secured real estate debt that may or may not be held by a German or American or Russian bank but rather sold on to investors or perhaps sold into a pool of mortgages. None of which could be subject to conflicts.
This is why tax returns should not be shared with economic illiterates.
Michael: "RV What does the phrase "huge debt covered by German banks" mean? Covered by? What on earth are you trying to say? That he has borrowed from Deutsche Bank? So what? What is different from a loan from Deutsche Bank or a loan from Wells Fargo?"
R/V has no idea what it all means. He/she, like the rest of the left/dems/MSM/"lifelong republicans" are just saying it to "keep it out there man!".
It's important to just keep listing all these unconnected conspiracy "data points" and then spend hours/days/weeks noodling over what "yet to be discovered" evidence can finally connect them all in a Grand Unified Conspiracy Realization Theory which inevitably leads to "teh Donalds" downfall.
"Trump is Guilty" they scream. Now they just have to find some evidence...
"It's important to just keep listing all these unconnected conspiracy "data points" and then spend hours/days/weeks noodling over what "yet to be discovered" evidence can finally connect them all in a Grand Unified Conspiracy Realization Theory which inevitably leads to "teh Donalds" downfall."
-- Yeah. That's the sort of conspiratorializing that caused some idiot to shoot at a pizza store. You'd think the left would've taken a DIFFERENT message away from Pizzagate.
Was that only Federal?
What did he pay in State?
We may be looking 30-35% total, seems fair.
Oh! Were the taxes found next to the Rose Law Firm files?
FullMoon said...
Chuck said... [hush][hide comment]
FullMoon said...
Chuck said:
A lot of stupid stuff.
You haven't been this far off since threatening to squeze Van Susterns tits, "to show her how it feels" SAD
3/15/17, 11:24 AM
You miserable lying sack of shit. I never wrote any such thing.
I may have mis-remembered some minor detail, but the gist of my comment is accurate. You did promise to do her bodily harm
I don't think Chuck deserves the abuse he gets here.
I appreciate Chuck's comments.
Trump leaked the document. And by doing so, he made Maddow/MSNBC look like the pathetic hacks they are. And even better, he has sealed off the question of Trump tax returns FOR ALL TIME!
Fuck you, Full Moon. I really wish I had something harsher, more demeaning and more personally offensive to say to you. I'm open to suggestions.
Right; I never ever ever mentioned or suggested anything about grabbing Greta van Susteren by the tits. I don't even know if that is possible.
But maybe it would be like grabbing somebody by the pussy, which never seemed to bother TrumpWorld all that much.
Yeah, you mis-remembered, Full Mooon. So your full, comprehensive, groveling apology is hereby accepted. I'm that kind of guy.
What I said about Greta van Susteren was at the height of the controversy in which Corey Lewandowski grabbed reporter Michelle Fields, then denied it, then Donald Trump said he didn't think it happened and that Corey was a great guy, and then surveillance video showed Corey grabbing Michelle pretty much exactly as she claimed.
And when Michelle had enough of being slandered by the Trump campaign and Trump media, she filed a complaint with the West Palm police. Which cuased Greta van Susteren to declare that the action on video was not an assault or a battery or anything else. (She was of course working for Trum- er, the Fox News Channel at the time. She must be having some interesting conversations with her MSNBC colleague Rachel Maddow about that incident now.)
And in response to that, I wrote that I'd like very to get an opportunity to grab Greta in precisely the same way that Corey grabbed Michelle; for the simple reason that Greta herself says that such touching is not a crime, not even a misdemeanor. I would not be assaulting Greta, because Greta has already said so.
And now this marks about the 50th time that I have had to correct some slug from the fever swamps of TrumpLand who misquoted me on all of that.
Don't think that I won't take the time to correct the record again, the next time some loser tries to troll me with this garbage.
Big Mike said...
@Chuck, you can always leave, can't you? And, yeah, FWIW I agree that if Trump funded a cure for cancer and caused peace in the Middle East and used missiles to blast apart a meteor on track to create the next extinction-level event, you'd find something or another to kvetch about.
Don't you realize what a lie this is already?
Trump nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court and I said it was brilliant. (Although I credited Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society, as did most insiders way above my pay grade.)
Trump nominated Betsy DeVos and I thought it was fantastic.
Trump chose Jeff Sessions for AG, and I said that he could not have chosen better.
Now, it looks like Trump is going to roll back the Obama CAFE standards for automakers, and it is a huge thing; bravo.
Trump is perfectly capable of doing the right thing, being surrounded with good advisors, and I won't be afraid to say so.
No, Chuck, no one thinks you "won't take the time to correct the record again", whenever you feel like it. Many of us do think you should maybe start your own site, or just get a life, or at least try to restrain yourself from posting more than 20 comments or 1000 words on the same site in the same day. Your comments are a far larger percentage of the total bulk of comments here than of the total quality. Maybe lowering the quantity and frequency would help raise the averae quality?
Chuck said... [hush][hide comment]
Fuck you, Full Moon.
Ya know, for a lawyer, you are kinda unimaginative with your retorts. Not criminal or divorce law, obviously, or your insults would be more colorful.
As for you lies regarding your threat to Greta, well, pretty sure that is some sort of ego defense mechanism.No worries,being non-judgemental, I understand your need to spin the situation in order to temper your shame.
Was that only Federal?
What did he pay in State?
We may be looking 30-35% total, seems fair.
Maybe he files in Florida.
Full Moon you are simply trolling me at this point. I answered your trashtalk with a much more detailed deconstruction than it deserved.
I ask Althouse to observe this level of abuse, defamation and trolling.
Chuck said...
Full Moon you are simply trolling me at this point. I answered your trashtalk with a much more detailed deconstruction than it deserved.
I ask Althouse to observe this level of abuse, defamation and trolling.
OK for you to threaten a woman with physical abuse, but my mediocre insults have you tattling to mama?
Kinda sensitive today, aren't we?
Chuck said
Trump nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court and I said it was brilliant. (Although I credited Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society, as did most insiders way above my pay grade.)
Trump nominated Betsy DeVos and I thought it was fantastic.
Trump chose Jeff Sessions for AG, and I said that he could not have chosen better.
Now, it looks like Trump is going to roll back the Obama CAFE standards for automakers, and it is a huge thing; bravo.
Trump is perfectly capable of doing the right thing, being surrounded with good advisors, and I won't be afraid to say so.
Then you agree President Trump has excellent management skills in spite of a vulgar personality.
Full Moon: I am not tattling to mama.
Let me tell you exactly what was on my mind. Have you seen a hockey game, where a guy trailing the play (with all the refs looking down-ice) gets speared by a bully from the opposing team? And without thinking, the guy who was speared drops his gloves and decks the offending player? And thereafter, the spearing player gets a 2-minute minor, while the reacting player gets a game misconduct?
That's what I was thinking about.
I want the league to review the video and suspend you, rightly, without dropping my gloves.
Chuck said...
Full Moon: I am not tattling to mama.
Let me tell you exactly what was on my mind. Have you seen a hockey game, where a guy trailing the play (with all the refs looking down-ice) gets speared by a bully from the opposing team? And without thinking, the guy who was speared drops his gloves and decks the offending player? And thereafter, the spearing player gets a 2-minute minor, while the reacting player gets a game misconduct?
That's what I was thinking about.
I want the league to review the video and suspend you, rightly, without dropping my gloves.
Just like you to mention that game without providing a link SAD!
Chuck said...
the guy who was speared drops his gloves and decks the offending player?
I was thinking about.... dropping my gloves.
Now threatening me with physical attacks? SAD!
Ima tell Althouse on you.
"
I want the league to review the video and suspend you, rightly, without dropping my gloves."
We already know you are a pussy, Vichy Chuck. No need to keep telling us.
"I kept thinking it would end so it wasn't worth the trouble to go in...."
Yeah, Obama and Co. said the same thing about Benghazi.
Man, late to this thread. Great comments by all. I actually bookmark lots of these comment threads when insight or facts (that I can verify) of an extraordinary nature come to my attention. It's been happening quite often lately.
For what it's worth, I enjoy Chuck's contributions - and FullMoon and Drago as well. There are still a sizable number of Republicans who are very unhappy with Trump - scheming against him, to be sure - and I feel like Chuck is a window to their mindset in a way. Tiresome on occasion, but still useful.
I just hope that this phony tax document "bombshell" is yet another nail in the coffin of the MSM. They already poll lower than Congress, let's see if they can become less popular than cancer.
Speaking of, and not to be morbid, but has anyone seen any comments from ChefMojo lately? I miss his input. If his time did arrive, I wish his family the best and hope his end was peaceful and in as much comfort as would be possible.
Chuck said,
"I ask Althouse to observe this level of abuse, defamation and trolling."
She does. She's laughing at you too.
You want respect?
Up your game.
I am a little unclear. How can somebody defame an anonymous internet comments section Chuck?
Can anybody explain the legal principle Chuck is announcing?
Kyzernick, I believe Chef Mojo is gone.
(If I'm wrong, my dear fellow, please pipe up! You are missed.)
Sad - our SF&F society lost one of its Board of Directors - this was in October and we only learned of it in February. Nice family. (Or perhaps it was us.)
Birkel said...
I am a little unclear. How can somebody defame an anonymous internet comments section Chuck?
Can anybody explain the legal principle Chuck is announcing?
3/16/17, 6:47 AM
I can, Birkel, happy to help out.
The legal principle is MOMMY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The legal principle is MOMMY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You owe me a new keyboard.
Post a Comment