Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The New York Times risked legal trouble to publish Donald Trump’s tax return
Washington Post ^ | October 2, 2016 | Callum Borchers

Posted on 10/02/2016 6:53:46 AM PDT by Pinkbell

Dean Baquet wasn't bluffing.

The New York Times executive editor said during a visit to Harvard in September that he would risk jail to publish Donald Trump's tax returns. He made good on his word Saturday night when the Times published Trump tax documents from 1995, which show the Republican presidential nominee claimed losses of $916 million that year — enough to avoid paying federal income taxes for as many as 18 years afterward.

Federal law makes it illegal to publish an unauthorized tax return:

It shall be unlawful for any person to whom any return or return information (as defined in section 6103(b)) is disclosed in a manner unauthorized by this title thereafter willfully to print or publish in any manner not provided by law any such return or return information. Any violation of this paragraph shall be a felony punishable by a fine in any amount not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.

Baquet said during a panel discussion at Harvard that if the Times' lawyers advised him not to publish Trump tax returns, he would argue that such information is vital to the public interest because the real estate mogul's "whole campaign is built on his success as a businessman and his wealth."

It is unclear whether Baquet was speaking hypothetically at the time or whether his newspaper already was in possession of the documents published Saturday. The Times wrote that "the pages were mailed last month to Susanne Craig, a reporter at the Times who has written about Mr. Trump’s finances...

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: media; msm; newyork; nyt; taxes; trump; trumptaxes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-79 next last
To: Arm_Bears

Reading through the posts it occurs to me, previously the thing restraint citizens from going full Claire Wolfe was the question of just who to shoot. Now we are at a point where you could shoot just about everyone within a 50 mile radius of DC and hardly fear any collateral injuries. In other words, we could and probably should, descend on DC and hang everyone we can lay hands on.


41 posted on 10/02/2016 7:37:26 AM PDT by wastoute (Government cannot redistribute wealth. Government can only redistribute poverty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell

joked during the talk that in the event of a criminal conviction, perhaps everyone in the newsroom could serve one day of the sentence.

I don’t think they’d be laughing very much if everyone
in the newsroom got five years each.

Or would their defense be, “We were just following orders!”.


42 posted on 10/02/2016 7:39:08 AM PDT by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

The state probably has similar laws.


43 posted on 10/02/2016 7:44:21 AM PDT by Oldexpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

The state probably has similar laws.


44 posted on 10/02/2016 7:44:21 AM PDT by Oldexpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
Again, I'm not saying no law was broken, but this law was not.

The problem with your interpretation is that it's the same information

The first 18 lines on the NY return is the same as the federal return, and line 18 even says: "This is your federal adjusted gross income".

But, setting aside that argument -- an interesting thought just occurred to me:

Back in September, Baquet said he would risk jail to publish this information. The article speculates whether he already had this in hand.

What if he got trolled by Trump -- who sent this information to the NY Times after Baquet's comments, knowing they couldn't resist. Now, he has Baquet by his private parts.

Here's why I'm suspicious: the NY Times wouldn't have taken this bait if they couldn't authenticate it. So, they went to Trump's former accountant -- who apparently didn't hesitate to do so.

My father was a CPA. He would have never offered that information without explicit authorization from a client. It's a violation of their code of professional conduct.

45 posted on 10/02/2016 7:50:01 AM PDT by justlurking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell

The answer is NO they would NEVER risk a DAMNED thing to get HELLARY’S email, BUT also CLINTON was IN CHARGE of the tax code in 1995!!!! So if HELLARY wants to complain about the tax code for billionaires she can look straight at HER HUSBAND in 1995!!!!


46 posted on 10/02/2016 7:53:08 AM PDT by Trump Girl Kit Cat (Yosemite Sam raising hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Redwood71

I don’t know why you think the public will react negatively to this. Some may, the uneducated, the hard left, perhaps. But I think far more will think “yes!” At least that’s what I’m sensing among various friends and acquaintances, many of whom are independent or undecided voters.


47 posted on 10/02/2016 7:53:23 AM PDT by Chengdu54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: justlurking
-- The problem with your interpretation is that it's the same information --

See it as you prefer. I disagree, but you'll get no discussion from me.

48 posted on 10/02/2016 7:53:41 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell

Trump could end up owning and changing the politics of the media!


49 posted on 10/02/2016 8:01:43 AM PDT by Lopeover (2016 Election is about allegiance to the United States!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell
NYT risks legal trouble

Bob Woodward. . . said he would risk jail

Nudge, nudge, wink, wink. Of course they would "risk" it. I'm sure Loretta Lynch's Just Us Department is staging an emergency, all hands meeting this morning in DC in order to pursue an indictment against the NYT.

The Chicago Tribune somehow managed to unseal a sealed divorce agreement against Zero's opponent for Senate in Illinois, which is ultimately how we got Zippy in office. They paid no price whatsoever for that disgusting and likely illegal action. America sure did, though.

These media slime can do ANYTHING against a Republican and pay no penalty whatsoever. Ann Coulter's quote about Timothy McVey and the New York Times is appropriate here.

50 posted on 10/02/2016 8:03:05 AM PDT by Hardastarboard (This is the legacy of Hillary Clinton: Death, destruction, terrorism and weakness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
I'm not saying no law was broken, but this law was not.

You seem to be taking great pains to not say what you are saying.

51 posted on 10/02/2016 8:17:42 AM PDT by itsahoot (GOP says, Vote Trump. But if your principles won't let you, Hillary is OK.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell

EXCELLENT question. According to the MSM charges of criminality should not be leveled against criminals, but honesty and decency prove the corruption of good people.


52 posted on 10/02/2016 8:20:05 AM PDT by Louis Foxwell (Stop the Left and save the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ealgeone

Which isn’t very much.


53 posted on 10/02/2016 8:22:19 AM PDT by orchestra ((And there were also two other, malefactors, led with him to be put to death.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Oldexpat; Cboldt
The state probably has similar laws.

The State of NY does have a law prohibiting disclosure of tax information:

Except in accordance with proper judicial order or as otherwise provided by law, it shall be unlawful for any tax commissioner, any officer or employee of the department of taxation and finance, or any person who, pursuant to this section, is permitted to inspect any report, or to whom any information contained in any report is furnished, or any person engaged or retained by such department on an independent contract basis, or any person who in any manner may acquire knowledge of the contents of a report filed pursuant to this article, to divulge or make known in any manner the amount of income or any particulars set forth or disclosed in any report under this article.

However, this is from the section on corporate income tax. The section on personal income tax is worded a bit differently:

Except in accordance with proper judicial order or as otherwise provided by law, it shall be unlawful for the commissioner, any officer or employee of the department, any person engaged or retained by such department on an independent contract basis, any depositary to which any return may be delivered as provided in subsection (h) or (i) of this section, any officer or employee of such depositary, or any person who, pursuant to this section, is permitted to inspect any report or return or to whom a copy, an abstract or a portion of any report or return is furnished, or to whom any information contained in any report or return is furnished, to divulge or make known in any manner the amount of income or any particulars set forth or disclosed in any report or return required under this article[...]

Both have very long sentences that run on far longer than they should, making it unclear exactly what qualifiers still apply.

The question is whether pursuant to this section still applies at the point where I've highlighted them. If that phrase is considered to be operative, then it could be used to restrict the scope of this law to disclosures by the tax commission.

54 posted on 10/02/2016 8:25:46 AM PDT by justlurking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot
-- You seem to be taking great pains to not say what you are saying. --

I'm just posting up a storm over the point.

55 posted on 10/02/2016 8:28:04 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell

Great! I would be more than happy to see these traitorous, anti-American propagandists in prison. It looks like they have little to show for their law breaking too.


56 posted on 10/02/2016 8:34:49 AM PDT by FenwickBabbitt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pinkbell

Donald Trump is a citizen of the United States. As long as the democratic party and cronies exist, NO Citizen is safe! What they did to Don, they will do to ANYBODY, and they have. Just ask Bill Clinton’s women!

Hellary and co-conspirator NYT just proven them truthful.


57 posted on 10/02/2016 8:38:50 AM PDT by PrairieLady2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

What Hillary and her people did was worse than Watergate. Nixon attempted an obstruction of justice by okaying an unsuccessful plan to get the FBI to halt its investigation of the break-in in order to cover up for his subordinants (the so-called “smoking gun” evidence that forced him to resign). The extent and success of Hillary’s obstruction of justice has been much larger than anything Nixon ever tried. What Trump did was follow normal tax laws. That the press is largely ignoring the former and going crazy over the latter shows what an Orwellian society we now live in.


58 posted on 10/02/2016 8:42:27 AM PDT by FenwickBabbitt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ImJustAnotherOkie

Isn’t it congress that creates the tax laws? Maybe he should blame Hillary for his not paying taxes.


59 posted on 10/02/2016 8:50:15 AM PDT by iowamomforfreedom (I'm a deplorable - ready to storm the gate - Vote Nov 8th)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: justlurking

If the law was in fact so speciously written as to make prosecution iffy, tax return publishing would have been a political sport in NY state for decades...


60 posted on 10/02/2016 8:53:00 AM PDT by Black Agnes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-79 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson