Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Wednesday, March 15, 2017

Rachel Maddow's "Revelation"


Evidently, there's no there, there. But I have a few questions at the bottom of this blog post.

From CNBC (dated March 14, 2017):
On her Tuesday show, Rachel Maddow teased a scoop: She had Donald Trump's 2005 tax returns. It was the first time his federal returns would be released.

Small digression: MSNBC's Maddow didn't have them. Investigative reporter David Cay Johnston got them, and went on her show to talk about it.

Anyway, when she finally revealed what was in the taxes, it was not a huge deal. Trump earned about $150 million in income in 2005, and paid $38 million in taxes....
Read the rest HERE.

According to today's Drudge Report:
TRUMP PAID HIGHER TAX RATE [25%] THAN MSNBC COMCAST [24%]... MUCH HIGHER THAN OBAMA [19%]... AND BERNIE [13%]
According to this source:
...“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,” the White House said in a statement.

Maddow, however, said that “for the record, the First Amendment gives us the right to publish the return.”...
Read the rest HERE.

According to Time, the two pages released are stamped "Client Copy."

Question 1: Who leaked documents stamped as "Client Copy"?  Trump himself?  His accounting firm?

Question 2: Is it actually legal to leak a person's tax return documents or any portion thereof without that person's consent or without a subpoena?

55 comments:

  1. It's not a stretch to think that Trump leaked this himself (since the information is only the overview for 2005)......in order to both play another childish game with the media......and possibly distract from something else being released today.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Far from a stretch.
      The little that was leaked doesn't reveal the source of his income or the nature of his write downs.

      It was a great public relations move.

      Delete
    2. Sure, it could be that Trump leaked this himself. But that is conjecture.

      Delete
    3. But to have watched MADDOW create something out of nothing was honestly HILARIOUS. I am SO glad I put that on just as she was presenting ...um...zip.
      The inferences were positively hilarious...MADDOW THINKS all SORTS of things that nobody's proven...honestly, I hope it's on YouTube, it's a laugh , for sure.

      AOW, nobody konws if Trump leaked it....could have. If so, it shows who's more brilliant; Maddow or Trump :-)?

      Delete
    4. It's certainly conjecture.....but look who's benefiting from this. Almost...as if....it was.........orchestrated......

      Delete
    5. CI,
      Yes, it could have been orchestrated.

      On the other hand, it could be the Maddow was overcome with the prospect of better ratings and the badge of taking down Trump. The latter didn't work, did it?

      Delete
    6. Z,
      If it appears on YouTube, notify me.

      Delete
    7. I seriously doubt that Donald Trump or his camp leaked the returns. If he did, the liberals would have outed him immediately in a fit of rage over Maddcow getting humiliated publicly. One of their own hacked in, hoping they would have an edge on Donald Trump, only to fail and force Maddcow to eat a huge piece of humble pie. Maddcow mooed!

      Delete
  2. I don't see how it can possibly be legal to "steal" a tax return and publish it, but to do such a thing to a sitting president is egregious.

    Did Trump leak them? Could be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Adrienne,
      I've been hearing and reading that it is indeed a felony to "steal" a tax return and publish it.

      Delete
    2. THIS is TOTALLY illegal because you're asking an IRS agent (fed employee) to steal; a FELONY, but the NY Times did it:
      "Nicholas Kristof ✔ @NickKristof
      But if you're in IRS and have a certain president's tax return that you'd like to leak, my address is: NYT, 620 Eighth Ave, NY NY 10018. https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/838554230529089536 …
      5:00 PM - 5 Mar 2017

      NEVER believe the liberal press has reached rock bottom: THIS IS what's important to them: https://www.yahoo.com/style/twitter-users-found-this-glamour-shot-of-kellyanne-conway-in-a-velvet-cloak-202825047.html

      By the way, a friend's camera woman worked on The Apprentice and is HOUNDED by the press when she's in NYC.."Did Trump do anything to you? Did he hit on you? Did you ever see anything Trump did to a woman?" She said she can't escape them. Think she's the only one person the media's constantly hounding people for ANYTHING on Trump? :-)

      Delete
    3. Z,
      In essence, the New York Times solicited a felony.

      Delete
    4. It's a well timed attempt to grab some positive news while his claim that Obama tapped his communications is coming up empty.
      Kellyanne's attempt to convince people it might have been his microwave didn't go anywhere.

      What a circus.

      Delete
    5. Ducky's Here,

      "coming up empty?" Then explain this, Einstein...

      What was driving all the anti-Trump leaks about all his collusion with the Russians?

      If Trump and his crew wasn't being tapped, how did the government police state spy agencies get a transcript (that they illegally leaked to the press) of Flynn's phone call with the Russians? Even if it were because of an existing tap of the Russian, there was no crime, so Flynn's identity was supposed to be masked.

      What was driving all those press accounts if nobody was tapping Trump? Please answer, Sherlock.

      Speaking of "coming up empty," we still haven't seen one shred of evidence of the Red Scare Russian Connection the left is hyperventilating about. In fact, James Clapper said there was no evidence.

      But anyway, back over to you. We eagerly await your response.

      Delete
    6. Hallo! Where did Duck man go? Hallo!

      Delete
    7. Always On WatchMarch 15, 2017 at 2:20:00 PM EDT
      Z,
      In essence, the New York Times solicited a felony.:

      That's what I'm saying, AOW! They DEFINITELY solicited a felony! See THAT on leftwing news? (uh...no)

      Delete
    8. Jurgen, he didn't want to debate with someone who is so ignorant that he believes the leak of the Flynn documents or accusations of Russian hacking is proof that Trump's communications are being hacked.
      Getting into it with low functional conspiracy theorists is a matter of mood.

      Delete
    9. Well, Duck, there is always the matter of metadata collection and the matter of those FISA warrants.

      That said, so far all statements released indicate that there was no "wiretapping" of Trump Tower.

      Delete
    10. DUCKY QUACKED! Hee hee hee hee hee hee! Just kidding!

      Delete
  3. I meant to add Rachael Madcow is a really repulsive person. I can't stand to even look at her. Glad the entire world is laughing at her right now. (I know, I know - not very charitable, but I don't have much charity left for bull dyke libtards.)

    ReplyDelete
  4. A Slate headline today declares that Maddow is a "cynical self-defeating spectacle."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. At Slate: Rachel Maddow Turned a Scoop on Donald Trump’s Taxes Into a Cynical, Self-Defeating Spectacle. One paragraph therefrom:

      The longer Maddow went on, ever deeper into a conspiratorial thicket, the clearer it became that whatever tax returns Maddow had, they weren’t as juicy as the ones she was talking about. If she had anything that damning, she would have shared them from the start. TV is a ratings game, but an entire episode about highly damaging tax returns is just as likely to get you great ratings as milking the possibility that you have highly damaging tax returns and less likely to get you compared to Geraldo. Maddow even went so far as to hold the tax returns back until after the first commercial break, as if we were watching an episode of The Bachelor and not a matter of national importance—because we weren’t, in fact, watching a matter of national importance, just a cable news show trying to set a ratings record.

      Delete
    2. Does anyone know of a cow body that I can photoshop Maddcow's head onto?

      Delete
  5. I for one sat there spellbound at the absurdity. Her breathlessness added to the atmosphere of impending doom of Trump. Alas, as she wandered through her screed making less and less sense, it became apparent that Trump once more would rise above the peril. In other words, my hunch she has been punked. Who better than MSNBC who with Mika has taken the derangement syndrome to new heights.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bunkerville,
      Her breathlessness added to the atmosphere of impending doom of Trump.

      I've noticed a lot of breathlessness emanating from those who despise Trump.

      Delete
    2. Yes,,,, watching, waiting for Humpty Dumpty to fall.

      Delete
  6. Hillbilly lied again eating popcorn watching the media ignore the facts is funny. Fun to jab here and there on FB. LOL.... losers!

    OT: seems I was always right about this thug while everyone thought he was the cat's meow.... THUG! Just one of the jihads like they all are!
    https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/03/zuhdi-jasser-endorses-pro-sharia-islamic-supremacist-says-no-greater-jihadists-than-foes-of-jihad-terror

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dcat,
      I saw that about Zuhdi Jasser. I didn't watch or listen to his rant that was posted.

      Delete
  7. It is my understanding that, while it is indeed illegal to steal such information, if you hand it off to a second party and they publish it, they are protected by the First Amendment.
    So, if you pull a "Sandy Berger" and smuggle confidential documents out in your socks, you could be prosecuted for the theft, but if you give them to the NYT or MSNBC, they're off the hook for prosecution.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mike,
      It seems to me that's an overreach of the First Amendment.

      Delete
    2. It was true of the Pentagon Papers back in the sixties, so it's not a recent phenomenon. The brothers who stole them went to prison, the NYT took their money to the bank.

      Delete
  8. As usual, I see no logic in protecting someone who publishes illegal material. For example, if someone were to steal your iPhone, and resell it to me, I would be guilty of receiving stolen property. Why doesn't that apply to information?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bob,
      I see no logic in protecting someone who publishes illegal material. For example, if someone were to steal your iPhone, and resell it to me, I would be guilty of receiving stolen property. Why doesn't that apply to information?

      My thoughts exactly!

      Delete
  9. Dear Ms. AOW,

    Please accept my apologies. Apparently, I chased away your guest, Ducky's Here by asking him a question and demanding answers.

    Please accept my apologies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm still around, dear heart.

      Since there have been leaks by intelligence agencies of documents concerning Flynn it's proof that Obama tapped communications at Trump Tower.

      Please stop.

      Once again, it's over. Let me know what they have to say at Breitfart or Gateway Pundit.

      Delete
    2. Hey, Sunshine.
      Check out the BBC world news.

      GCHQ is denying Judge Napolitano's claim that they were behind tapping Trump Tower.

      What a sideshow.

      Delete
    3. You're back! Excellent. Now stop ducking and answer this question for us.

      If Trump and his crew wasn't being tapped, how did the government police state spy agencies get a transcript (that they illegally leaked to the press) of Flynn's phone call with the Russians?

      Even if it were because of an existing tap of the Russian, there was no crime, so Flynn's identity was supposed to be masked.

      Where did the source material for all the leaks to the news outlets come from?

      Delete
    4. I'm not so sure that those denials mean anything. If Judge Napolitano's claim were correct, I wouldn't expect the GCHQ to 'fess up, would you?

      Delete
    5. The question is whether Obama ordered the taps, Hairy.

      You seem to be backpedaling.

      Delete
    6. Is this accurate?

      Graham is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism; Whitehouse is its ranking Democrat. On March 8, the two sent a letter to Comey demanding answers to the wiretap controversy.

      “Apparently the FBI has contacted my staff (and said) that they will be at some date in the future providing us an answer to this in a classified manner,” Graham stated at a hearing on Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election, according to the Daily Mail.

      If there was no wiretapping (or at least no proof of wiretapping), why does the FBI need a classified briefing?


      Yes, yes, I know that the Daily Mail is mentioned. But has the FBI requested a classified meeting or not?

      Delete
    7. Ducky, So you do admit the government has abused it anonymity and powers to spy on Trump and his campaign? Good! We're getting somewhere.

      So you are good with this so long as the president is shielded from the nefarious illegal activity?

      Amy the ghost of Nat Hentoff take a gigantic defecation upon your perfidious and illiberal leftwing head.

      Delete
    8. If there was no wiretapping (or at least no proof of wiretapping), why does the FBI need a classified briefing?

      Because intelligence sources and methods will be discussed.

      If Judge Napolitano's claim were correct...

      Fox News has refuted his claim as well.....while our POTUS continues to damage our longest alliance, based on hearsay from the very medium that he claims is "fake news". Wonderful.

      Delete
    9. CI,
      based on hearsay from the very medium that he claims is "fake news".

      Yes.

      Not a good move. Not at all.

      Fox News has refuted [Judge Napolitano's claim as well

      I hadn't heard that.

      Didn't he base that claim on three anonymous sources?

      Delete
    10. As I heard him speak, he said Fox had received anonymous sources. Fox released a statement denying that. FWIW

      Delete
    11. CI,
      Fox released a statement denying that.

      Really? Sheesh.

      Delete
    12. CI,
      Hold.

      The.

      Phone.


      The Judge Napolitano matter is more complicated than you indicated. See THIS.

      Delete
    13. Reminds me of the old game "Telephone"!

      Delete
    14. This highlights just how morally and ideologically corrupted our news media has become.

      Delete
    15. CI,
      No doubt!

      And have a look at this little gem.

      And this: "Washington Post Changes Headline So You Won't Understand Illegal Aliens Are Getting Benefits."

      A lot of people today never read beyond any headlines. We are no longer a nation of readers -- or thinkers. **sigh**

      Delete
    16. To be fair though, the gem was Entertainment Weekly. Not necessarily much different than Fox or MSNBC in content perhaps.....but certainly not what anyone would considering to be 'news'.

      Delete
    17. CI,
      Yes. But the headline ran at MSN.

      Whatever.

      Delete
  10. Sgt. Paul Westervelt, USMC said

    Serve the Lord wth gladness
    He is glorious beyond measure
    Imitate Him in all His marvelous ways
    Take no prisoners when combatting His enemies.

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective