Posted on 10/02/2016 6:53:46 AM PDT by Pinkbell
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.
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!”.
The state probably has similar laws.
The state probably has similar laws.
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.
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!!!!
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.
See it as you prefer. I disagree, but you'll get no discussion from me.
Trump could end up owning and changing the politics of the media!
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.
You seem to be taking great pains to not say what you are saying.
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.
Which isn’t very much.
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.
I'm just posting up a storm over the point.
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.
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.
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.
Isn’t it congress that creates the tax laws? Maybe he should blame Hillary for his not paying taxes.
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...
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.