Comments on: The Times is now accusing Trump of tax fraud

By: Doc Stat

Doc Stat — Fri, 05 Oct 2018 11:14:06 +0000

The Times really overshot the mark on this one. They’re alleging criminal fraud and the NY state tax attorney’s are looking into it. This was done, obviously, as a Hail Mary attempt to take down Trump using the tax courts.

It will most likely fail, but will prove to his base, and many outside his base, that the Establishment is once again trying to take him down.

Now, if they hadn’t implied criminal tax fraud and just showed that 1) Trump received a LOT MORE than $1 million dollar loan from his father and 2) Trump is no different than other mega-rich people in that he pays people to hide his wealth (legally but in a scummy fashion) they would have eroded his support among the middle-class working Americans who voted for him.

Gods if the Dems weren’t so damn stupid maybe they would have taken him down already.

By: Steve57

Steve57 — Thu, 04 Oct 2018 23:11:08 +0000

“The Times is now accusing Trump of tax fraud”

Excuse me, Neo. I believe you misspelled “always.”

By: neo

neo — Thu, 04 Oct 2018 17:43:16 +0000

markq:

No, that is NOT what you were “just saying.” In fact, it’s not what you were saying at all, Mr. Troll.

But even if it were, it happens to be absurd. Logic is not your strong point.

(1) Leaked records of all kinds are not the same as leaked IRS records (or leaked doctor records, or leaked therapist records, for that matter). IRS records are confidential information that is protected by penalty of law. They are under a special class of high protection.

(2) Did you ever hear of the word “and”? A person can be against the leak of information that is private (such as an email correspondence, for example) AND also discuss the information disclosed, evaluate what it means, and have an opinion about that.

(3) I have never leaked information in my life. And believe me, I have a lot of confidential information from other people (legally confidential information from therapy) that I have never divulged and that it would take a court order to make me divulge. So even by that stupid rubric of yours, I would have every right to criticize the NY Times.

By: JFM

JFM — Thu, 04 Oct 2018 16:18:34 +0000

I opened a 401(k) account in 1987 to minimize my tax liability. Does this mean that I engaged in tax evasion?

Another NYT article where the article was written to justify a sensational headline.

By: om

om — Thu, 04 Oct 2018 15:20:49 +0000

markq throws out the weak “You are a hypocrite” charge (of course he has never been inconsistent in his own behavior) in asking for an impossible standard that the left will never comply with. Stolen of leaked tax records used by the NYT – all good. Fraudulent science used to formulate national and international policy – all good. Criticism of said policy because the fraudsters didn’t reveal their crimes – bad. Criticism of the NYT enabling criminal release of confidential data – bad. How would marq like his tax or medical records to be released for the benefit of the NYT – good?

Quite to tool to silence criticism of the left (proposed by markq). Genius! /s

By: markq

markq — Thu, 04 Oct 2018 15:07:48 +0000

i’m just saying, if you have a policy not to use stolen information yourself to make negative commentary that’s okay with me. Lots of bloggers didn’t have a problem using the leaked climate server info to attack climate science.

If you follow such a policy yourself, you have a legitimate claim to attack news sources for doing it.

By: AesopFan

AesopFan — Thu, 04 Oct 2018 14:48:29 +0000

Sergey on October 4, 2018 at 7:48 am at 7:48 am said:
It seems USA needs more tough anti-defamation laws.
* * *
But not ones that can be used by the left to harass people, which is how most of them are positioned.
What we need are more judges willing to (1) slap down snowflakes who use the courts in lieu of reasoned debate: Mark Steyn is in his seventh year of defending against Michael Mann’s claim that he was “defamed” by a one-paragraph snarky comment in an opinion editorial; I believe the judge is unwilling to make a decision because the correct one is so anathema to the left.
https://www.steynonline.com/7734/the-vertigo-at-the-top-of-the-stick

(2) allow fair challenges to biased news reports that maliciously defame public figures (and private ones as well; anybody who writes on social media is “public” now).
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/21/the-associated-press-judges-signal-theyll-revive-sarah-palin-defamation-lawsuit.html

By: AesopFan

AesopFan — Thu, 04 Oct 2018 14:37:25 +0000

Looks like Manju handed off to markq for this story.

Barry Meislin on October 4, 2018 at 7:10 am at 7:10 am said:
“The sad thing…”

(Actually, the criminal, conspiracy thing….)
https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/409817-russia-collusion-bombshell-dnc-lawyers-met-with-fbi-on-dossier-before
* * *
More analysis here by J E Dyer.
https://libertyunyielding.com/2018/10/04/explosive-house-testimony-on-russiagate-mystery-fbi-informant-fbi-meeting-with-dnc-reps/

By: markq

markq — Thu, 04 Oct 2018 13:59:26 +0000

neo says Actually, that’s a really lousy point.
Let’s see—if you promise to give me something and you don’t do it, it’s okay if I steal it?
And then it’s perfectly okay if I get a reporter to write an article in The NY Times accusing you of something like fraud although you’re not guilty?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you’ve refused to use leaked information obtained illegally by someone else on your blog to make points it would be a good point. Have you refused to make comments on contents of Democrats email, or something from WikiLeaks which is a publisher of illegally obtained material?

By: Sergey

Sergey — Thu, 04 Oct 2018 11:48:53 +0000

It seems USA needs more tough anti-defamation laws. They are the most weak by any international standard. In more normal situation free speech laws allow to counter libel and slander by more free speech for accused, but we do not live in normal situation. The press and hi-tech is almost monopolized by leftists. There are two possible cures for this monopolization: to break monopolies, or if this is not possible, regulate them as utilities.