Popcorn: Rachel Maddow Claims To Have Trump's Tax Returns

Townhall.com ^ | March 14, 2017 | Christine Rouselle

[HotHunt]

[2CAVTrooper]

The first pic looks like peyton manning in drag, and the second looks like the love child of andy dick and shia labeouf.

[ALASKA]

So he did what everyone else does

[oldvirginian]

“The first pic looks like peyton manning in drag, and the second looks like the love child of andy dick and shia labeouf.”

That gal has a neck a Lone Star bottle would be proud of.
Just me or has she had some nose work done?

[Kickass Conservative]

If you never saw the “now”, you would probably think the “then” was a fairly attractive young woman.

Unfortunately, or fortunately, what has been seen cannot be unseen. LOL

[Kickass Conservative]

I almost typed that but I walked away from the Keyboard.

Thanks for taking the bullet. LOL

[CurlyDave]

Why is the White House pushing the line that it is illegal for MSNBC to broadcast/publish the tax returns? The law would have been violated if the tax returns originated from the IRS. And assuming a violation of the law (that the returns did indeed originate from the IRS), MSNBC still isn’t doing anything wrong by broadcasting/publishing them. MSNBC is fully protected by the 1st Amendment. In that scenario, only the leaker violated the law.

That is what she claimed on her show. I am less than 100% certain.

Counterexample: If someone left kiddie porn in her mailbox would she be 100% protected by 1A to publish it?

I am not a lawyer, but there is a dividing line somewhere between what is protected by 1A and what is not. Kiddie porn is on one side of the line. Exactly which side of the line illegally obtained tax returns fall on is not as clear cut as you suggest.

[Alberta's Child]

Unauthorized disclosure of a person's Federal income tax return is illegal under 26 U.S. Code § 7213. Section (a)(3) applies to third parties.

Since the mere disclosure of this information by the media is itself a crime -- as opposed to the media, as in the Bartnicki case -- this means the media cannot broadcast someone's tax return all over the airwaves and then hide behind the First Amendment.

This is all just an academic discussion, since I am sure MSNBC had obtained the tax return from someone who was authorized to have it.

[RummyChick]

You claim your case impedes the rights all states to protect their citizens from disclosure of Social security numbers despite the fact that it isnt even a case of that nature.
so any and all state laws apply to counter your nonsense.

And since you refuse to look at state law...you cant even make a cogent argument.

[UCANSEE2]

Freedom of Speech applies to everyone.

1. No, it doesn't.

2. You are ignoring the RESPONSIBILITY aspect of the case. You can SAY anything you want, but you must also be responsible for what you say.

[UCANSEE2]

We are ALL protected by the first amendment.

No, we are not. I can prove it to you, if you wish.

[UCANSEE2]

You can SAY or even DO anything you want. However, the 1st Amendment does not protect you from being prosecuted, jailed, or even killed for it.

[Neoliberalnot]

Last time I checked it was a felony to steal someone’s tax return. The mad dyke needs to seek asylum in Bellevue where those with SSAD belong.

[fortheDeclaration]

Yes, it is simply blind hatred and hope that the American People will be filled with envy against his success.

[Neoliberalnot]

Last time I checked it was a felony to steal someone’s tax return. The mad dyke needs to seek asylum in Bellevue where those with SSAD belong.

[ridesthemiles]

I want every single one of these ‘reporters’ to be indicted for having/using/talking about anyone’s tax returns.

That information is between my employer—me—my CPA—and the IRS.

How would any of these creeps like having THEIR tax returns exposed???

The jealousy of every Liberal in the USA over how successful Trump has been is palatable.