(10-04-2018 05:15 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: A little inductive reasoning here.
If they had them, they had them illegally, as Trump has not released them. C'mon, Tom, you don't do what you do for a living without knowing that.
If they did not have then, how did they write the article?
Res ipsa loquitur.
Rachel Maddow has one of his returns. She did not get it illegally. Latin that.
How did she get it legally?
Not the question. No Bull is claiming that the NY Times has his returns and that they have obtained them illegally. He has no proof whatsoever whether they do have them or if they do that they illegally obtained them.
ipso facto
I don't know whether they have his returns or not. But if they have his returns, then they obtained them illegally, unless Trump released them.
That could be interpreted to mean that the person who gave such information to the NYT would be the criminal actor. But if anyone at the NYT received such information and passed it along, then he/she would come afoul of section (3).
Since you didn't cite all those subsections referred to in section (3), I can't say specifically, but what you posted from section (3) seems to me to be referring to someone with legal access to those returns, such as an officer or employee under this section, which the NYT (and Maddow) would not be.
(10-04-2018 05:15 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: A little inductive reasoning here.
If they had them, they had them illegally, as Trump has not released them. C'mon, Tom, you don't do what you do for a living without knowing that.
If they did not have then, how did they write the article?
Res ipsa loquitur.
Rachel Maddow has one of his returns. She did not get it illegally. Latin that.
How did she get it legally?
Not the question. No Bull is claiming that the NY Times has his returns and that they have obtained them illegally. He has no proof whatsoever whether they do have them or if they do that they illegally obtained them.
ipso facto
it is called deductive reasoning... u use it all the time Redwingtom... unless it doesn't suite your purposes…
when it doesn't suite your purposes... you demand ironclad proof... when proof is provided you turn to your straw man arguments... when that doesn't work you move the goalposts... when that fails you disappear...
You. Still. Don't. Have. Proof. The. Times. Has. His. Tax. Returns. Nor do you have proof they illegally obtained them even if they did! No matter how many times you post that video clip.
That being said, they certainly could have them and they could have illegally obtained them. When you show me the the later, I'll condemn them right along with you.
(This post was last modified: 10-08-2018 03:24 PM by Redwingtom.)
Quote:Over a months-long investigation, the Times reviewed more than 100,000 pages of financial documents -- bank statements, financial audits, cash disbursement reports and canceled checks. They included more than 200 tax returns from Fred C. Trump, the President's father, and other family partnerships and trusts. The Times also interviewed some of the President's father's former employees and advisers.
The records reviewed by the Times did not include Trump's personal tax returns or his recent business dealings.
(10-08-2018 03:22 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: You. Still. Don't. Have. Proof. The. Times. Has. His. Tax. Returns. Nor do you have proof they illegally obtained them even if they did! No matter how many times you post that video clip.
That being said, they certainly could have them and they could have illegally obtained them. When you show me the the later, I'll condemn them right along with you.
Agree that we don't know they have them, or at least that I certainly don't. But if they do have them, how could they have them other than illegally?
I quoted the statute. How could they have them without violating that statute? And if they have them, how could they quote them without violating the statute?
(10-08-2018 03:22 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: You. Still. Don't. Have. Proof. The. Times. Has. His. Tax. Returns. Nor do you have proof they illegally obtained them even if they did! No matter how many times you post that video clip.
That being said, they certainly could have them and they could have illegally obtained them. When you show me the the later, I'll condemn them right along with you.
Agree that we don't know they have them, or at least that I certainly don't. But if they do have them, how could they have them other than illegally?
I quoted the statute. How could they have them without violating that statute? And if they have them, how could they quote them without violating the statute?
Well, not being a lawyer, and as I said without all the references to other sections mentioned in what you posted, that section reads to me to be talking about someone with access (I assume meaning legal access) to his returns and then releasing them...either while employed or afterward.
I don't see how a lawyer worth his salt would have allowed Rachel Maddow to show his return on National Television if that would have constituted a crime. And you can't believe they would not have consulted their lawyer's before airing that story.
(10-08-2018 03:22 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: You. Still. Don't. Have. Proof. The. Times. Has. His. Tax. Returns. Nor do you have proof they illegally obtained them even if they did! No matter how many times you post that video clip.
That being said, they certainly could have them and they could have illegally obtained them. When you show me the the later, I'll condemn them right along with you.
Agree that we don't know they have them, or at least that I certainly don't. But if they do have them, how could they have them other than illegally?
I quoted the statute. How could they have them without violating that statute? And if they have them, how could they quote them without violating the statute?
Well, not being a lawyer, and as I said without all the references to other sections mentioned in what you posted, that section reads to me to be talking about someone with access (I assume meaning legal access) to his returns and then releasing them...either while employed or afterward.
I don't see how a lawyer worth his salt would have allowed Rachel Maddow to show his return on National Television if that would have constituted a crime. And you can't believe they would not have consulted their lawyer's before airing that story.
In days gone by I'd agree with you on the bold. These days; however, I simply can not believe in that like of thinking given how things have played out since the last POTUS election.
(10-08-2018 03:22 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: You. Still. Don't. Have. Proof. The. Times. Has. His. Tax. Returns. Nor do you have proof they illegally obtained them even if they did! No matter how many times you post that video clip.
That being said, they certainly could have them and they could have illegally obtained them. When you show me the the later, I'll condemn them right along with you.
Agree that we don't know they have them, or at least that I certainly don't. But if they do have them, how could they have them other than illegally?
I quoted the statute. How could they have them without violating that statute? And if they have them, how could they quote them without violating the statute?
Well, not being a lawyer, and as I said without all the references to other sections mentioned in what you posted, that section reads to me to be talking about someone with access (I assume meaning legal access) to his returns and then releasing them...either while employed or afterward.
I don't see how a lawyer worth his salt would have allowed Rachel Maddow to show his return on National Television if that would have constituted a crime. And you can't believe they would not have consulted their lawyer's before airing that story.
Frankly, I don't think they care. I think this generation of SJW's is so convinced of the truth and justice of their cause that they simply don't give a rat's ass whether what they are doing is legal or not. It's for the higher cause, so it's good no matter what. The problem is that they're not Martin Luther King or Nelson Mandela, no matter how badly they want to be.
Quote:But legal experts have said the way the returns were obtained matters.
If a media organisation did not conspire to steal the material or get it from the government but simply received it from a private citizen, criminal liability would be less clear.
Quote:But legal experts have said the way the returns were obtained matters.
If a media organisation did not conspire to steal the material or get it from the government but simply received it from a private citizen, criminal liability would be less clear.
(10-08-2018 04:23 PM)58-56 Wrote: Perfectly legal for a vengeful ex-wife to pop a copy of a joint return into the mail.
Perhaps. But here's the problem. If you receive the returns by that method, even if there is not illegality there, but then disclose those returns to anyone else without permission, you have committed an illegal act.
(10-02-2018 08:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: For all their bluster about wanting to help the working middle class, democrats don't. They help the non-working welfare class. Obamacare was at best a zero-sum game. Some people, mainly welfare poor, were better off, at least in theory. They got basically worthless health insurance, tanks to subsidies, where they had no health insurance before. They were offset by others, mainly working middle class, whose health insurance premiums skyrocketed.
Democrat policies screw the middle class. But republicans are too stupid to call them out.
The bolder part is exactly freaking wrong. Can’t stress that enough. People on welfare already had the gold card and what’s worse in my opinion is you know this. Obamacare helped out the working poor. People who made more than minimum wage jobs too. One of two things. You are extremely ignorant (and I believe you are not) or you are delibaretly mischarcterizing who benefits. People on Medi Caid has the gold card bud. I think you know that. That’s what pisses me off most about Republicans. They say they are for the working poor but in reality they can’t be.
No it didn't. The deductibles are so hi that the government subsidized their health insurance (made it free), but the working poor can't self fund the deductibles.......so it's basically a piece of paper they can't use......
Quote:But legal experts have said the way the returns were obtained matters.
If a media organisation did not conspire to steal the material or get it from the government but simply received it from a private citizen, criminal liability would be less clear.
/
NY Times hit job on Trumps tax returns
![[Image: 4526691da43b4838b9618ca1b23e6809.jpg]](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/45/26/69/4526691da43b4838b9618ca1b23e6809.jpg)
![[Image: trump-tax1.jpg]](https://c.o0bg.com/rf/image_960w/Boston/2011-2020/2016/10/02/BostonGlobe.com/Politics/Images/trump-tax1.jpg)
![[Image: marla_maples_dancing_with_the_stars_art.jpg]](https://cdn1.thr.com/sites/default/files/2016/03/marla_maples_dancing_with_the_stars_art.jpg)