Congress, Criminal law, Media, Politics, Society, Uncategorized

Bad Return: MSNBC Publication Triggers A Wave Of Responses From Mockery To Criminal Allegations

imgresThe build up last night on MSNBC had my phone ringing off the hook.  Rachel Maddow proclaimed “we’ve got the Trump returns.”  It turned out to be just the 2005 filing. Well, not the 2005 filing, the first two pages.  Worse yet, it turned out to be an entirely predictable tax return for a wealthy businessman with tons of deductibles.  It seemed like the tax version of Al Capone’s safe with Geraldo Rivera.  What was particularly odd is that MSNBC was “all in” — even after seeing that there was little there.  Maddow led with a long list of things we want to know from Trump’s tax return.  But none of those things were in the return.  They lined  up experts who seemed a lot like the “weather center” reporters the night before covering the major snow storm in D.C.   Reporters literally showed a dusting on cars in parking lots and spoke breathlessly about the possible storm that never came.  The tax experts were left in the same curious position — discussing what might have been shown.  As a legal commentator, I bowed out.  It was like being called as a seismologists to discuss an earthquake that never happened.  It is certainly true that Trump and Melania paid is a rate of less than 4 percent on their personal income — $5.3 million. However, they paid an additional $31 million under the alternative minimum tax, or AMT.  They used every loophole and tactic to reduce payments but those loopholes were legal and used by many in his tax bracket.

Having said that, the White House and others went too far in raising allegations of criminal conduct by Maddow and MSNBC in reporting on the story. There was also a return to the mantra of the “dishonest media.”  There was nothing dishonest in publishing the return. It was clearly overplayed but it was not dishonest to cover the leak.

I have a lot of respect for Maddow, who is as smart as they come and often offers penetrating analysis.  However, one had to wonder if MSNBC was played.  Why would someone leak a tax return that would seem to support Trump?  It is a federal crime to do so with potential jail time of five years. Who would risk it for this?   Even CNBC called the story a victory for Trump.

In fairness to Maddow, there is no legal reason that I know preventing President Trump from releasing his tax returns and he should do so.  There is a long tradition of such transparency in history and I am very disturbed by the failure to do so in this Administration.

Having said that, the MSNBC seemed intent on riding this story despite the fact that it moved little.  Donald Trump earned more than $150 million in the year 2005 and paid $38 million in taxes.

After decrying the illegal disclosure of a return, the White House noted “Before being elected president, Mr. Trump was one of the most successful businessmen in the world with a responsibility to his company, his family, and his employees to pay no more tax than legally required . . . That being said, Mr. Trump paid $38 million even after taking into account large-scale depreciation for construction, on an income of more than $150 million, as well as paying tens of millions of dollars in other taxes such as sales and excise taxes and employment taxes and this illegally published return proves just that.”

Here is the full statement:

“You know you are desperate for ratings when you are willing to violate the law to push a story about two pages of tax returns from over a decade ago.”Before being elected President, Mr Trump was one of the most successful businessmen in the world with a responsibility to his company, his family and his employees to pay no more tax than legally required.

That being said, Mr. Trump paid $38 million dollars even after taking into account large scale depreciation for construction, on an income of more than $150 million dollars, as well as paying tens of millions of dollars in other taxes such as sales and excise taxes and employment taxes and this illegally published return proves just that.
“Despite this substantial income figure and tax paid, it is totally illegal to steal and publish tax returns.

The dishonest media can continue to make this part of their agenda, while the President will focus on his, which includes tax reform that will benefit all Americans.”

I agree with Maddow that MSNBC has a journalistic basis for publishing this return under the First Amendment, even though publication is also a federal crime. I also did not like the reference to “the dishonest media.”  There was nothing dishonest about reporting on such a leak.  It is wrong to continually accuse media of being dishonest or liars when they are performing their important function under our Constitution.  I do believe that Trump is facing a hostile media and that coverage has been at times slanted. However, media remains one of the most important institutions in protecting our liberties.
I also did not appreciate the allegation that MSNBC violated the law.  Most leaks technically violate the law but they are at the core of some of the most important historical reforms in our history.  From the Pentagon Papers to Watergate, leaks have revealed illegality and dishonestly long shielded by the government.  Administrations have sought to find those who steal and release such documents, but have historically respected the right of the media to cover such leaks.   Once again, this constant drumbeat against the media needs to end.  The White House is perfectly correct in challenging biased reporting and I have seen plenty of instances of such reporting in the last few months.  However, Administrations should not throw around criminal allegations against the media for reporting a clearly newsworthy leak. It turned out to be less important than MSNBC suggested and that was something of an embarrassment. However, in light of the President’s refusal to turn over his returns, it was by any definition newsworthy for publication to address some of the long-standing allegations.
What do you think?

160 thoughts on “Bad Return: MSNBC Publication Triggers A Wave Of Responses From Mockery To Criminal Allegations”

  1. Good a take on this nonsense as any . BUT get in the habit of calling them by their correct name They aren’t the mainstream media they are the LEFT stream media and as such are they really ‘media?’ Does that term apply to ‘propagandists?’ So…

    ABC, CBS, NBCetc, CNNespecially LEFT Stream
    Fox having moved to the left to fill in the blanks Main Stream
    Right Wing? Not Town Center and Friends they move left as well and along with Fox are RINO supporters.

  2. I think a lot of readers are passing by the mouth foamers like Maddow. I know they think they have recovered their composure, but once the veil is dropped…hard to re-create the illusion of legitimate press figures.

    1. “mouth foamers” – good description. And I totally agree.

  4. I actually only read this story because the Professor was talking about it. Well, actually the Professor and Milo. But in the mainstream, I passed. Not really a Maddow fan.

  5. Maddox is just upset because she found out that Trump didn’t, according to the tax return, contribute to her favorite and beloved charity–Dykes on Bikes–that free wheelin’ group of unshaven bikers gals, sporting mullets and calf tattoos, who donate to the poor.

  6. CNN says that the return was stamped “client copy.” So Trump must know who leaked it – whoever maintained custody of his tax returns, or someone with access to them. If the return were leaked by an IRS employee -which it wasn’t – it would have IRS “received” and routing stamps on it. In which case it would most certainly be a criminal offense. But as this was a “client copy” of a return prepared by Trump’s tax advisors, the release was either an inside job, or if not, it shouldn’t be too hard to figure out who had access.

    1. What if Trump had to attach his Tax Return to some loan application? Then the company or bank would have his Tax Return. They could have revealed it.

      2. Or it could have been hacked. Income documents are kept in archives online. All they would have to know was the bank where he got a loan. Or his accountants could have been hacked.

        That said, he could have directed the release himself and chose a kind year. That would be kind of savvy because it would deflate some interest in the later years, which I assume have some juicy deductions and loss carryovers.

        He should have just gotten in front of it and released it himself. But I suppose the media could have ruined him for taking legal deductions.

    2. CNN says that the return was stamped “client copy.”

      Uh huh.

  7. There is a difference between traditional journalism and complicity/conspiracy in a federal crime. I wouldn’t be so glib about MSNBC being “off the hook”. We need to know the identity of the leaker. Obviously. Maddow and her employer won’t help, and they shouldn’t.

    Well, not at first. But an investigation will be conducted, and it just may reveal that the “leaker” had prior contact with MSNBC. Believe me, we are going to investigate that too. If it is established that the network had supportive input with the leaker – say, inquiring on how it will be done, or advising the leaker in any way – then you’re out of traditional protection from the first amendment.

    The press has first amendment protection, sure. But it’s long past due that anonymous leaks of classified information can be tolerated.

    1. Tax returns are confidential, but are not considered “classified information.”

      1. anon, it is so cute how you get all your news and facts from Twitter.

            1. Russian spies were charged in the hacking of Yahoo. That is a fact that I read on twitter.

  8. “It is certainly true that Trump and Melania paid is a rate of less than 4 percent on their personal income — $5.3 million. However, they paid an additional $31 million under the alternative minimum tax, or AMT.”

    It’s for this reason that Trump is trying to get rid of the AMT, which will allow him to pay personal income tax at a rate less than that of the poorest wage earner. That’s your president in a nutshell: a self-serving scoundrel.

    1. I’d question the competence of a businessman who hired CPA’s and tax attorneys who advised him to NOT work the tax code to his advantage. Oh, and the sanity of the contributors here who believe their own personal tax rate should be determined by the “poorest wage earner”.

      1. Olly, I have no beef with Trump for trying to reduce his tax exposure. I have a problem with him trying to void a progressive taxation system for his personal benefit at the expense of the working poor. His effective tax rate after paying the AMT was 25% which isn’t outrageous on $191M adjusted gross. Poor guy.

        Why you’re not on the bandwagon is simply nonsensical. When Trump does well under the benefits and protections afforded him by this country, he should return more to it. This isn’t rocket science.

        1. Steve Groen – I think everyone needs to have skin in the game. Everyone pays income taxes. I use a CPA to do my taxes, more expensive than those tax guys in the mall, but more effective. When you have skin in the game, you can yell at the flunkies.

        2. Black Baby Jesus Obama paid about 14%. Did you gripe about that?

        3. Who do you think you’re fooling Steve? Of course you have a beef. Anyone, and that includes you, desires to KEEP as much of what you earn as possible. A billionaire, millionaire or the poorest among us all have the same basic instincts to acquire property (income) and retain as much as legally allowed. When Trump or any other individual “does well under the benefits and protections afforded him by this country”, what is the objective measure of how much they “should return more to it”? Progressives gave us this tax code, is the answer to that found there?

          Bandwagon? I have no idea what effing bandwagon you’re on but I’m on the rule of law bandwagon. I’m on the Life, Liberty and Property bandwagon. I’m on the freedom from government taking my property for their utilitarian dreams bandwagon. I’m on the “I will choose what I return to society and how I return it to society” bandwagon.

          No, this is not rocket science; this is NONE OF YOUR EFFING BUSINESS what anyone does with their money within the law. But then again progressives aren’t content with justice if it does not include “Social” in front of it.

          1. People with little money should pay more and those with millions should pay less. Got it.

            If the average citizen pays about 30%, because not everyone can afford his own CPA, everyone should.

            1. “If the average citizen pays about 30%, because not everyone can afford his own CPA, everyone should.”

              Everyone should strive to be “average”? How socialist of you. I’m not sure what you got but it certainly is not “it”. The average citizen has the choice to budget for the cost of a CPA, which for me is about $250 annually. There is a reason those with millions, as you say have millions and that is very likely because they have a desire to NOT be among the average paying more in taxes than legally required.

            2. The average citizen does not pay 30%. The average citizen pays pretty much zero in income taxes, as explained by Karen S below. I am a CPA, and everything in her post is precisely correct. You don’t seem to be very bright. Read Karen’s posts for a much needed education. FFS.

              1. But, but that can’t possibly be correct because that would completely destroy his point. 🙂

          2. Olly: “When Trump or any other individual “does well under the benefits and protections afforded him by this country”, what is the objective measure of how much they “should return more to it”?”

            You’ve alluded to taking what you can get under the tax law, i.e., keeping more of what you earn. I don’t have any quarrel with that, and I didn’t imply that Trump has done anything illegal with regard to his taxes. It’s the law that I have a quarrel with, and specifically regressive taxation and in a larger sense the lack of equal treatment in the Internal Revenue Code and regulations.

            Since its inception, the tax code has been used for constructive social engineering, but when it comes to progressive taxation you object. So to make things as you would have them in the tax code – by doing away with progressive taxation – let’s look at just a few of the ways the tax code may have benefited you and what would happen if we all paid the same rate of tax on any and all income by stripping notions of social engineering from the IRC and requiring that all acquisitions now become income subject to individual income taxation.

            1) Tax-filing status – no being or staying married so that you can claim Married Filing Jointly and no Head of Household. Everyone would file as an Individual. Got a wife, minor children or other dependents?

            2) Personal exemptions for dependents. Got a wife, minor children or other dependents?

            3) Child’s tax credits – no claiming kids’ credits anymore to reduce taxes. Got kids?

            4) Typical Schedule A deductions – No property tax, insurance, home mortgage, and HELOC interest deductions. Every take out a mortgage?

            5) Military benefits – why can’t have the government encouraging people to go fight its wars by offering tax free BAH (live in the barracks), BAS (take the family and eat at the chow hall), and GI Bill benefits including BAH, tuition, and books for four years of college. Every get any of these?

            How would your life be different, Ollie, had we all paid at the same rate on any and all acquisitions being construed as income?

            I could go on and on about how social engineering through the Internal Revenue Code has benefited you. When you say you want to keep as much as you can from the government by doing away with progressive taxation, however, what you’re really saying is that selective acquiescence to social engineering is proper but only when it serves your interests.

    2. Well, the poorest wage earner pays no tax, but gets a refund on withholdings. The reason why the poor lose a greater percentage of their income in taxes is not because of federal and state income tax, but rather sales tax.

      Plus there are property taxes (thank you Prop 13 in CA for stopping seniors from getting taxed out of their homes!), fuel taxes, sin taxes (which also hit the poor the hardest), payroll taxes, business licenses, permits, work comp, fees, estate taxes, etc. There are so many hands out that at the end of the day, it’s absurd. Whatever you are left with you want to horde and then claim as many deductions as legally possible to smack away yet more hands out hungry for more taxes. When people clamor for the rich to pay more, they are usually looking at one single, or a small group, of the taxes and fees that they pay, and not the overall picture. But, of course, from the corporate side, there is the exodus of American companies fleeing our high taxes for more beneficial locations overseas.

      Here are a couple of articles that you may find interesting:

      http://www.cnbc.com/2015/01/15/do-the-wealthy-pay-lower-taxes-than-the-middle-class.html

      http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/13/high-income-americans-pay-most-income-taxes-but-enough-to-be-fair/

      “In 2014, people with adjusted gross income, or AGI, above $250,000 paid just over half (51.6%) of all individual income taxes, though they accounted for only 2.7% of all returns filed, according to our analysis of preliminary IRS data. Their average tax rate (total taxes paid divided by cumulative AGI) was 25.7%. By contrast, people with incomes of less than $50,000 accounted for 62.3% of all individual returns filed, but they paid just 5.7% of total taxes. Their average tax rate was 4.3%.”

      And here is this interesting section on paying into Social Security. It’s only taken out of the first $118,500 that you earn, because it’s not supposed to be yet another progressive tax, but something you pay into to benefit you, without a need to go beyond that amount.

      “Since the 1970s, the segment of federal revenues that has grown the most is the payroll tax – those line items on your pay stub that go to pay for Social Security and Medicare. For most people, in fact, payroll taxes take a bigger bite out of their paycheck than federal income tax. Why? The 6.2% Social Security withholding tax only applies to wages up to $118,500. For example, a worker earning $40,000 will pay $2,480 (6.2%) in Social Security tax, but an executive earning $400,000 will pay $7,347 (6.2% of $118,500), for an effective rate of just 1.8%. By contrast, the 1.45% Medicare tax has no upper limit, and in fact high earners pay an extra 0.9%.

      All but the top-earning 20% of American families pay more in payroll taxes than in federal income taxes, according to a Treasury Department analysis.”

      “Still, that analysis confirms that, after all federal taxes are factored in, the U.S. tax system as a whole is progressive. The top 0.1% of families pay the equivalent of 39.2% and the bottom 20% have negative tax rates (that is, they get more money back from the government in the form of refundable tax credits than they pay in taxes).”

  9. I think Maddow is still in election night meltdown like so many libs.

  11. Indefensible silliness. What’s more is that MSNBC is betting on their viewer base to be just as ridiculous. It’s also hypocritical. Didn’t a bunch of these media people end up with tax liens against them? It’s also an excellent distraction from what’s really going on with the world. Oh say like, Venezuela and the doomed EU…Nevermind that Trump just met with a Saudi prince.

    I crave real news these days.

    They can publish as much nonsense as they want. What’s criminal is the neglect of the serious topics.

  13. “Trump is facing a hostile media and that coverage has been at times slanted.”

    Every president should face a hostile media. And it’s rich for the Steak-Salesman to complain about dishonesty while previously whining endlessly like an orange snowflake about birtherism and the release of college records.

    1. Every president should face a hostile media.

      Where you been the last 8 years?

      1. Totally. Fox News, talk radio: they were all so in love with Obama. Those media outlets don’t qualify as the media apparently.

        1. He might get a difficult question if he ever called on a reporter from New York Post or Fox. How unutterably outrageous.

            1. Obviously, from the spelling of “colour” in the retort, another foreigner, spouting off about his perceived inadequacies of our system, while, simultaneously, affording himself the benefits and luxuries of said system.

              Color me, not colour me, surprised. From which cesspool of a country do you hail?

  15. Regardless of how the Tax returns were made public. I think it is abhorrent that the effective rate is about 4%. If you add back in the deductions he would have gotten a refund.

    I am for a flat tax across the board for individuals making more than 75,000.00.

      1. That makes more sense to me. It certainly wasn’t what they wanted.

  16. He should refuse to release his returns to stick a thumb in the eye of the media and the professoriate.

      1. “Americans” aren’t jonesing for his tax returns. Journalists are.

  17. Perhaps not “dishonest media” (in this case), but at least disingenuous. Big hype about “tax returns”, and it amounts to nothing. I did not watch any of this myself, but from what you describe it sounds like they had “news” coverage speculating what flaws/dishonesty there might be in a tax return that looked (the first two pages) completely legit.

    Smells like Fake News to me.

  18. Pingback: POWERS OF THE MIND

  19. Maybe my memory is going, going, gone. But I don’t remember this fascination with The Obama’s returns.
    However now that the proof is in that a template of another person was used for his Hawaii birth certificate. All we hear from the MSM is crickets. 👋🏼

    1. No, it wasn’t. Gov. Lingle’s commissioner of health and the registrar of vital statistics examined the bloody originals in the state archives.

      1. ?? I loved Margaret Thatcher. I love Sandra Day O’Connor. you’re not trying to tell me Maddow is a woman, are you. Whatever, he’s not strong whatever he/she is. Just hyperbolic and breathless.

        1. Sandra Day O’Connor? She of the five-part balancing test? She of the Webster decision?

          I’d give her chops for keeping her equanimity as her husband descended into senility over 20 long years….

          1. Sandra Day O’Connor is still working. She is part of a project to bring civics back to the classroom.

        2. Not everyone beats to your drum. Some like flutes and some like harmonicas’ while others indulge in both.

      3. I understand that your sexuality is called into question and that you do not like the reverse/adverse side of a coin. That is very type of parties to one side or the other. They would much rather burn the forest than take out an unhealthy tree. Reminds me of a very emotionally disturbed German leader.

        1. I’m shocked to see you refer to Maddow as an unhealthy bush.

          This stuff writes itself.

Comments are closed.