So how exactly did the NYT LEGALLY acquire the transcripts of Trump's Taxes

[Kyle]

Links to that "fact"?. Thanks.

Do like Sadpussi...

 

[Yooper]

(a) This not a controlled substance like alcohol we are discussing.

We are discussing state returns which the source had access to (b) and provide transcripts of to the NYT.

Since you didn't get the alcohol example, let's put this another way. Try on this example:

(a) The hospital your doctor has privileges in has legal ACCESS to your medical information. But the hospital does NOT have legal RIGHT to release it without your permission.

The exact same thing is going on here. Hence, the NYT's careful parsing of words to make it all look on the up & up.

This has NOTHING to do with whether Trump is ultimately found to have done nothing/something; this has to do with the propriety of an info release.

(b) This is quite simple. If the source of the info had/has a legal RIGHT to release the info then the NYT would have said that. But it didn't. That's a problem. That is why you make a great leap of faith in asserting the source had access AND permission to release. THIS WAS NOT WHAT WAS STATED BY THE NYT.

You may disagree with other members of the Forum on any number of issues, but unless you're being utterly partisan or are utterly stupid you can't not agree with this take.

So stop being so obtuse. I don't expect that you and I will agree on much, but this should be one where we do. This is a process issue/matter/question, not anything more.

But if you can't even stipulate to this simple question of process propriety, then you're telling me PrchJrkr was correct (link: https://forums.somd.com/threads/decade-in-the-red.341508/post-5997093).

--- End of line (MCP)

 

[Hijinx]

Links to that "fact"?. Thanks.

I was about to ask where in this purloined document does it say he cheated on his taxes?

 

[GURPS]

..... but unless you're being utterly partisan or are utterly stupid you can't not agree with this take.

of course he is ........ defeat Trump by ANY MEANS Necessary NOTHING Else Matters

 

[Yooper]

(a) The hospital your doctor has privileges in has legal ACCESS to your medical information. But the hospital does NOT have legal RIGHT to release it without your permission.

The exact same thing is going on here. Hence, the NYT's careful parsing of words to make it all look on the up & up.

This has NOTHING to do with whether Trump is ultimately found to have done nothing/something; this has to do with the propriety of an info release.

(b) This is quite simple. If the source of the info had/has a legal RIGHT to release the info then the NYT would have said that. But it didn't. That's a problem. That is why you make a great leap of faith in asserting the source had access AND permission to release. THIS WAS NOT WHAT WAS STATED BY THE NYT.

More info to flesh out the points I was trying to make in an earlier, re: the propriety/legality of the NYT receiving Trump's tax return info (^^^above^^^).

The article I snipped/linked to (link at bottom) is very interesting and - I thought - did a balanced job of laying out the issues (though I'm sure it will be immediately poo-poo'd by certain esteemed members of the Forum due to it being posted on Fox News).

Two main points.

First, the person(s) who released the info may have (as in, probably did) violate Federal law.

Federal law – 26 U.S.C. §7213(a)(1) – makes it a felony for any federal employee to disclose tax returns or “return information.” Infractions are punishable by up to five years in prison and a fine as high as $250,000 under the Alternative Fines Act (18 U.S.C. §3571).

Second, it is a Federal crime for entities to come into possession of and publish this tax information.

Section (a)(3) of the law makes it a felony for any person who receives an illegally disclosed tax return or return information to publish that return or that information. But it’s unknown if the bar on publication by a media organization could survive a First Amendment challenge.

The law is not clear if the NYT's receipt would be criminal receipt or protected by previous First Amendment protections rulings. But the NYT's response to the article was clearly put together by its lawyers in an attempt to the thread the various laws' needles. Regardless...

If such a prosecution were attempted, there is no doubt that a First Amendment challenge would be filed.

We do know that the courts have been very "tough" in maintaining tax return privacy. To wit:

Confidentiality, as the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held in 1991 in U.S. v. Richey, is essential to “maintaining a workable tax system.”

and

Taxpayer privacy is “fundamental to a tax system that relies on self-reporting” since it protects “sensitive or otherwise personal information,” said then-Judge (now Supreme Court Justice) Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1986 in another case when she served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

So this means that even if criminal charges did not go forward a civil case might have (and has had) more success. As I noted to one of the Forum's esteemed members:

The NYT are being cute in its choice of words. It may very well come back to haunt The Gray Lady.

I stand by that assessment.

Anyway, I snipped to try to give you the essence of the story. To do so I reordered the snips a bit. Worth taking a look at the entire story; click over (link): Hans von Spakovsky: NY Times publication of Trump tax information violates his legal right to confidentiality

--- End of line (MCP)

 

[GURPS]

More info to flesh out the points I was trying to make in an earlier,

Progressives don't give two shts about Trumps Privacy ..... Defeat by ANY Means Necessary

buy hook or crook ANYTHING to embarrass, cast dispersion twist / spin into alleged illegality

like Collusion, Violating the Emoluments Clause, 'asking' Russians to Hack Hillary's Email Server