Failing NY Times Obtains Trump Tax Records

[Imperialisium]

So if there's a court decision requiring that the tax records be turned over, and the campaign was refusing, is it really illegal to publish them?

Yes. Given your scenario presented it follows the “two wrongs don’t make a right.”

If a court order was issued to turn over the records to authorities and the campaign refused then that is illegal on the part of the campaign. However, this doesn’t excuse another entity from breaking the law or being absolved of anything.

Another scenario would be if say, you got subpoena’d for information that I knew was held in your home, and you refused the court order (for some reason). It is not allowable nor excusable for me to then trespass onto your property, break into your home, and retrieve them for publication.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

The point is that news media in the US cannot be restrained from or prosecuted for publishing any information they have obtained from any source. Because Amendment I.

Amendment 1 does not protect them from illegality in any form. If I obtained your tax records without permission and published them, then cited Amendment 1, I can still be prosecuted.

Freedom of Speech isn’t Freedom of Libel.

Publishing someone else’s tax returns wouldn’t be libel, libel at its core simply means to print lies and unless the tax returns are factually incorrect and made up it wouldn’t be libel. What it would be is an invasion of privacy at most, and likely some other privacy related crimes.

[Imperialisium]

There is anything left of Biden? (Joke)

American Neo-Liberals are as far left as it goes without being on the fringe. So it makes all the difference.

“Far left as it goes” doesn’t matter much when neoliberalism is still firmly on the right.

Tell that to American “liberals.”

[Imperialisium]

Amendment 1 does not protect them from illegality in any form. If I obtained your tax records without permission and published them, then cited Amendment 1, I can still be prosecuted.

Freedom of Speech isn’t Freedom of Libel.

Publishing someone else’s tax returns wouldn’t be libel, libel at its core simply means to print lies and unless the tax returns are factually incorrect and made up it wouldn’t be libel. What it would be is an invasion of privacy at most, and likely some other privacy related crimes.

Which, in this case the NYT is lying via assumption or presentment of wrong doing. There is a malice element to libeling someone which fits this.

You’re not wrong on the privacy though.

[Aclion]

So if there's a court decision requiring that the tax records be turned over, and the campaign was refusing, is it really illegal to publish them?

Yes. Having a subpoena entiles a person to be provided with a document. Not to disclose it. Its not only illegal to abuse subpoena powers in this way it is also an excellent way to piss the hell out of the judges involved

For those over 100 Million it should be a wealth tax.

I'll leave aside the issues with whether it should be a wealth tax. It's not. The United States does not have a wealth tax, and so there is no moral, ethical or legal expectation that Trump would pay one.

[Fahran]

For those over 100 Million it should be a wealth tax.

This is also an extremely bad idea, unless you modify it significantly, because most corporations and millionaires aren't actually liquid. You do not want corporations, businesses, or investors liquidating assets and investments that enable them to generate revenue because that could not only reduce long-term tax revenue for the government but damage the economy as well. Really, I'd recommend simply increasing the income tax rate on brackets above $32,000 if you're trying to implement a welfare system on par with Europe's. And probably lowering corporate and business tax rates even more. In short, if you want to spend like a Nordic country, tax like a Nordic country.

We do have an inheritance tax in the US already if you were referring to that.

[Saiwania]

The idea behind the inheritance tax being justified is that past a certain point, enough wealth can earn enough interest/dividends/returns on top of that principal so as to enable that wealth to grow exponentially past the normal rate of inflation and the money supply and entire economy will be negatively effected if a class of idle rich is allowed to have most of the nation's entire wealth concentrated amongst them or for such a trend to keep going in that direction indefinitely.

If you have a large enough balance in the bank or in an investment portfolio, it is viable to live off of the interest/dividends and not have to actively do anything to manage that money asides from not spending too much. Provided the assets remain valuable.

[Betoni]

Publishing someone else’s tax returns wouldn’t be libel, libel at its core simply means to print lies and unless the tax returns are factually incorrect and made up it wouldn’t be libel. What it would be is an invasion of privacy at most, and likely some other privacy related crimes.

Which, in this case the NYT is lying via assumption or presentment of wrong doing. There is a malice element to libeling someone which fits this.

You’re not wrong on the privacy though.

No they aren't. If you actually read the piece there were no lies or assumptions of wrong doing. The part I found interesting was the consulting payments to his children. Especially when the other parties in those deals didn't know of any consulting done, but I guess it could be justified pretty easily.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

The idea behind the inheritance tax being justified is that past a certain point, enough wealth can earn enough interest/dividends/returns on top of that principal so as to enable that wealth to grow exponentially past the normal rate of inflation and the money supply and entire economy will be negatively effected if a class of idle rich is allowed to have most of the nation's entire wealth concentrated amongst them or for such a trend to keep going in that direction indefinitely.

If you have a large enough balance in the bank or in an investment portfolio, it is viable to live off of the interest/dividends and not have to actively do anything to manage that money asides from not spending too much. Provided the assets remain valuable.

You have the right materialist framework, comrade.

[Gravlen]

The point is that news media in the US cannot be restrained from or prosecuted for publishing any information they have obtained from any source. Because Amendment I.

Amendment 1 does not protect them from illegality in any form. If I obtained your tax records without permission and published them, then cited Amendment 1, I can still be prosecuted.

Freedom of Speech isn’t Freedom of Libel.

"Libel". Now that's a funny joke. Well played

[Imperialisium]

Which, in this case the NYT is lying via assumption or presentment of wrong doing. There is a malice element to libeling someone which fits this.

You’re not wrong on the privacy though.

No they aren't. If you actually read the piece there were no lies or assumptions of wrong doing. The part I found interesting was the consulting payments to his children. Especially when the other parties in those deals didn't know of any consulting done, but I guess it could be justified pretty easily.

They are doing as I stated. Otherwise they’d show proof beyond “We heard something. Can’t say where though. Just believe it okay? Okay?! Stop thinking sheep and obey our truth! okay?!!”

As to consultation. Businesses have found far more creative ways to get loopholes in tax payments. How do you think Amazon, Google, Apple, and all of those companies get millions and millions in credits. They’re not *technically* cheating or doing anything bad in a legal sense. But it shows how broken the US tax system is for sure. A tax system that neither party ever wants to fix.

[Vassenor]

So are we going to see evidence that these returns are false, or is it the same tactic we saw a few weeks ago where anything anonymous must be fake because y'all can't harass the source like Vindman?

[Imperialisium]

So are we going to see evidence that these returns are false, or is it the same tactic we saw a few weeks ago where anything anonymous must be fake because y'all can't harass the source like Vindman?

That’s a question for NYT. Then again...the left in the US doesn’t like it when they get criticized/harassed back till ad nauseam. So I’m betting a no.

[Vassenor]

So are we going to see evidence that these returns are false, or is it the same tactic we saw a few weeks ago where anything anonymous must be fake because y'all can't harass the source like Vindman?

That’s a question for NYT. Then again...the left in the US doesn’t like it when they get criticized/harassed back till ad nauseam. So I’m betting a no.

And presumably the only way in your eyes that they can prove this is true is by forsaking whistleblower protections so you can have a target.

[Imperialisium]

That’s a question for NYT. Then again...the left in the US doesn’t like it when they get criticized/harassed back till ad nauseam. So I’m betting a no.

And presumably the only way in your eyes that they can prove this is true is by forsaking whistleblower protections so you can have a target.

For me to have a target? No, no. You’ve presumed way off the mark. My whole angle on this is that I dislike bad journalism and click bait articles.

[Des-Bal]

For me to have a target? No, no. You’ve presumed way off the mark. My whole angle on this is that I dislike bad journalism and click bait articles.

That certainly is your justification.

[Imperialisium]

For me to have a target? No, no. You’ve presumed way off the mark. My whole angle on this is that I dislike bad journalism and click bait articles.

That certainly is your justification.

Given its my repetitive answer to these presumptions. It is. Thus it is better than any presumption, which is just a cope by those who make them; otherwise why not just ask how I personally feel, if it’s so important to some? Instead of making up snarky fallacies about a person purely for disliking something they may agree with.

Food for thought.

[Vassenor]

And presumably the only way in your eyes that they can prove this is true is by forsaking whistleblower protections so you can have a target.

For me to have a target? No, no. You’ve presumed way off the mark. My whole angle on this is that I dislike bad journalism and click bait articles.

But you can't prove that this is actually clickbait and just keep asserting it.

[Thermodolia]

For those over 100 Million it should be a wealth tax.

This is also an extremely bad idea, unless you modify it significantly, because most corporations and millionaires aren't actually liquid. You do not want corporations, businesses, or investors liquidating assets and investments that enable them to generate revenue because that could not only reduce long-term tax revenue for the government but damage the economy as well. Really, I'd recommend simply increasing the income tax rate on brackets above $32,000 if you're trying to implement a welfare system on par with Europe's. And probably lowering corporate and business tax rates even more. In short, if you want to spend like a Nordic country, tax like a Nordic country.

We do have an inheritance tax in the US already if you were referring to that.

I don’t buy into the idea that those above $100 Million net worth actually do anything other than line their own pockets. I’m only talking about personal wealth here and not corporations or the like.

[Imperialisium]

For me to have a target? No, no. You’ve presumed way off the mark. My whole angle on this is that I dislike bad journalism and click bait articles.

But you can't prove that this is actually clickbait and just keep asserting it.

I didn’t repeatedly do so. I did mention it being bad journalism, and by definition for what the article is trying to convey it is clickbait. Which by definition any article seeking to attract clicks, typically through a sensationalized or targeted headline for a specific demographic. I.E. NYT giving a headline which immediately will garner the positive attention of people who like them along with potentially drawing in people who don’t like their views. As paraphrased from Oxford Languages definition.

^This is technically my first assertion that it is. If I do so again then that is repeatedly doing so according to English grammar rules and vocabulary definitions.

[Cannot think of a name]

But you can't prove that this is actually clickbait and just keep asserting it.

I didn’t repeatedly do so. I did mention it being bad journalism, and by definition for what the article is trying to convey it is clickbait. Which by definition any article seeking to attract clicks, typically through a sensationalized or targeted headline for a specific demographic. I.E. NYT giving a headline which immediately will garner the positive attention of people who like them along with potentially drawing in people who don’t like their views. As paraphrased from Oxford Languages definition.

^This is technically my first assertion that it is. If I do so again then that is repeatedly doing so according to English grammar rules and vocabulary definitions.

This is a loose enough take that any headline is 'clickbait.' Every headline is designed to attract readers. if it's not, you're a shit editor.

Also, journalists protecting sources IS good journalism because it allows sources to be more revealing without fear of retaliation and in fact is why journalists protect their right to protect their sources so vehemently. The New York Times has a standard of verifying and vetting their sources and if you actually read the article you would see where they refer to and allude to their cross referencing and where they are clear about information they cannot verify something.

I'm fine with people being critical of reporting, but I would prefer it if they actually were and weren't just wearing it like a costume.

[Imperialisium]

I didn’t repeatedly do so. I did mention it being bad journalism, and by definition for what the article is trying to convey it is clickbait. Which by definition any article seeking to attract clicks, typically through a sensationalized or targeted headline for a specific demographic. I.E. NYT giving a headline which immediately will garner the positive attention of people who like them along with potentially drawing in people who don’t like their views. As paraphrased from Oxford Languages definition.

^This is technically my first assertion that it is. If I do so again then that is repeatedly doing so according to English grammar rules and vocabulary definitions.

This is a loose enough take that any headline is 'clickbait.' Every headline is designed to attract readers. if it's not, you're a shit editor.

Also, journalists protecting sources IS good journalism because it allows sources to be more revealing without fear of retaliation and in fact is why journalists protect their right to protect their sources so vehemently. The New York Times has a standard of verifying and vetting their sources and if you actually read the article you would see where they refer to and allude to their cross referencing and where they are clear about information they cannot verify something.

I'm fine with people being critical of reporting, but I would prefer it if they actually were and weren't just wearing it like a costume.

I didn’t write the definition. Just reciting it.

Yes, and no. Protecting sources (the person) is one thing. Making claims with the specific purpose of putting someone in poor light with no verifiable evidence is another thing entirely (the documents Or ‘proof’ they supposedly have). The first part is good. The second is bad and lacks integrity.

Alluding to something isn’t the same as having it. Alluding to the Earth being flat, doesn’t make it so. Further, having a standard and vetting system doesn’t mean it’s good or unbiased. Which NYT is (and every mainstream corporate news source on earth for that matter).

So I’m ironically what you prefer. Imagine that.

[Cannot think of a name]

This is a loose enough take that any headline is 'clickbait.' Every headline is designed to attract readers. if it's not, you're a shit editor.

Also, journalists protecting sources IS good journalism because it allows sources to be more revealing without fear of retaliation and in fact is why journalists protect their right to protect their sources so vehemently. The New York Times has a standard of verifying and vetting their sources and if you actually read the article you would see where they refer to and allude to their cross referencing and where they are clear about information they cannot verify something.

I'm fine with people being critical of reporting, but I would prefer it if they actually were and weren't just wearing it like a costume.

I didn’t write the definition. Just reciting it.

Yes, and no. Protecting sources (the person) is one thing. Making claims with the specific purpose of putting someone in poor light with no verifiable evidence is another thing entirely (the documents Or ‘proof’ they supposedly have). The first part is good. The second is bad and lacks integrity.

Alluding to something isn’t the same as having it. Alluding to the Earth being flat, doesn’t make it so. Further, having a standard and vetting system doesn’t mean it’s good or unbiased. Which NYT is (and every mainstream corporate news source on earth for that matter).

So I’m ironically what you prefer. Imagine that.

You really, really are not.

You know what, you haven't read the article. That is absolutely clear and completely demolishes this veneer you're creating for yourself.

First of all, again, your working of the definition-stupid. Nothing in the NYT headline is misleading and like a good headline directs the reader to the part of widest interest. Not clickbait, we can just stop with that now. "I'm just using the definition here" has never been an effective argument, mostly because it suggests only a surface understanding of the subject. Something that is abundance in your 'critique.'

If you had the integrity you are pretending to have, you would have read the article and the surrounding reporting. If you had the integrity you are pretending to have then you would have known that they are not sharing the document to protect the source they got it from. This is not hidden subtext, this is overt and knowable to anyone who has bothered to have more than a passing familiarity with the story. You have not, and it undermines the position you are pretending to have.

Your fixation on the word 'alluding' ignores both the context it was in and misrepresents the situation. Journalistic integrity indeed.

You are playing dismissal and trying to dress it up as journalistic critique. Every defense you make makes it even clearer. We can move on. I'm sure you'll stamp your foot and insist your costume is the real thing, but we can see it's not.

[Imperialisium]

I didn’t write the definition. Just reciting it.

Yes, and no. Protecting sources (the person) is one thing. Making claims with the specific purpose of putting someone in poor light with no verifiable evidence is another thing entirely (the documents Or ‘proof’ they supposedly have). The first part is good. The second is bad and lacks integrity.

Alluding to something isn’t the same as having it. Alluding to the Earth being flat, doesn’t make it so. Further, having a standard and vetting system doesn’t mean it’s good or unbiased. Which NYT is (and every mainstream corporate news source on earth for that matter).

So I’m ironically what you prefer. Imagine that.

You really, really are not.

You know what, you haven't read the article. That is absolutely clear and completely demolishes this veneer you're creating for yourself.

First of all, again, your working of the definition-stupid. Nothing in the NYT headline is misleading and like a good headline directs the reader to the part of widest interest. Not clickbait, we can just stop with that now. "I'm just using the definition here" has never been an effective argument, mostly because it suggests only a surface understanding of the subject. Something that is abundance in your 'critique.'

If you had the integrity you are pretending to have, you would have read the article and the surrounding reporting. If you had the integrity you are pretending to have then you would have known that they are not sharing the document to protect the source they got it from. This is not hidden subtext, this is overt and knowable to anyone who has bothered to have more than a passing familiarity with the story. You have not, and it undermines the position you are pretending to have.

Your fixation on the word 'alluding' ignores both the context it was in and misrepresents the situation. Journalistic integrity indeed.

You are playing dismissal and trying to dress it up as journalistic critique. Every defense you make makes it even clearer. We can move on. I'm sure you'll stamp your foot and insist your costume is the real thing, but we can see it's not.

I’ve really done none of the things you state and have thoroughly read the article not once, but thrice for good measure. But clearly you’re taking this very personal what with all the ad hominems.

Might I suggest, as put by one of my own past professor who was oft to give sage advice, “The moment you make this personal. You lost.” Which, you just lost any shred of integrity and respect you had with me, which I freely give with the expectation of someone being mature back. Clearly, in your case, I was gravely mistaken.

As for a personal advice of my own. I would recommend not calling other posters here “stupid” or lacking in integrity purely because you disagree with them. I disagree with many people on here. But not once do I think to call them stupid or any other infantile remark. Remarks which make it abundantly clear just how biased and unsuited you are to this sort of debate.

So I bid you good day.

[Aclion]

The point is that news media in the US cannot be restrained from or prosecuted for publishing any information they have obtained from any source. Because Amendment I.

Amendment 1 does not protect them from illegality in any form. If I obtained your tax records without permission and published them, then cited Amendment 1, I can still be prosecuted.

Freedom of Speech isn’t Freedom of Libel.

This is sort of correct other then the libel. It's an issue of privacy rights vrs public interest. The new York Times would be in a better position if they'd taken the returns and found fraud and reported on that. But there isn't a very strong public interest argument in releasing records that don't show wrongdoing. Addionly while journalists get some leeway if someone leaks material to them they aren't protected if they solicit the leak.