[Gaffer]

Your supposition at first said nothing about a possible “fake” that I could see. You supposed they knew something additional about it, where it came from, legally even.....I just showed you the logic that both the reporter’s claims and your supposition they “knew” can’t both be true. It makes no difference about your additional supposition - it’s just meant to further muddy your original thought.

[Alberta's Child]

See the first sentence in that post:

Nothing would prevent someone from using any ordinary desktop publishing software to fabricate a tax return and fill in fictitious numbers.

[Alberta's Child]

P.S. -- If the U.S. Justice Department doesn't even investigate the matter, then you can probably assume that no crime was committed.

P.P.S. -- We went through this same sh!t back when the New York Times published another very old tax return in 2016.