NYTs Buries What Trump Paid in Taxes (UPDATED)

UPDATE:

New York Times caves to truth… but Twitter never censored these lies:

It’s not everyday The New York Times undercuts its own Trump-Russia saga by admitting that there’s no evidence President Donald Trump owes money to Russia.

In a shocking story headlined “No, There Isn’t Evidence That Trump Owes Money to Russia,” Times Business Investigations Editor David Enrich wrote: “Lately, liberals and other social media accounts have been spreading rumors, presented as fact, that [Trump] owes [money] to the Kremlin or Russian oligarchs.” The rumors, according to Enrich, “don’t hold up.” 

The rumors, according to Enrich, were based on The Times report on Trump’s tax returns. This would appear to undercut earlier speculation by The New York Times Editorial Board (The Editorial Board) in a 2017 piece headlined “The Trump-Russia Nexus.” In that piece, The Editorial Board attempted to connect Trump’s business dealings to the Russians. But here’s the kicker: “The world would know much more about Mr. Trump’s foreign partnerships if he had released his tax returns, as every president has done for the last 40 years.” [Emphasis added.]

Apparently, since The Times claimed that it finally obtained Trump’s tax returns, it turns out that portion of the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory apparatus didn’t exactly pan out.

Enrich documented some of the false theories liberals had been pushing on Trump’s tax returns. According to one “conspiracy theory,” said Enrich, “Deutsche Bank agreed to make the loans because they were backstopped by Russians — the Kremlin or a state-owned bank or an oligarch.” The theory stipulated that “If Mr. Trump were to default, it would be the Russians, not Deutsche Bank, on the hook for the losses.”  

Enrich outlined another false theory: “[A]fter Deutsche Bank made the loans, it sold chunks of them to Russians. It is common for large loans to be syndicated or securitized — in other words, chopped up and sold to investors. In the late 1990s through the mid-2000s, Deutsche Bank did this with some of its large loans to Mr. Trump.” The theory suggests that “the president would owe the money to Russians, not the German bank.”

But, to reiterate Enrich, “the theories don’t hold up.”

Enrich summarized: “Deutsche Bank didn’t chop up and sell the latest batch of debt — the only portion that is still outstanding, according to bank officials with direct knowledge of the transactions. The loans remain on Deutsche Bank’s books.”……..

(NEWSBUSTERS)

(Just a quick note, Trump’s business ventures — no matter what you think of his success — has hired MANY thousands of people over the years and paid them enough wages to pay for a place to live, send kids off to college, given them health care, and the like. Joe Biden has done none of this. He is a politician for life.)

Mark Levin reads a few sentences from the New York Times article:

...Mr. Trump was periodically required to pay a parallel income tax called the alternative minimum tax, created as a tripwire to prevent wealthy people from using huge deductions, including business losses, to entirely wipe out their tax liabilities.

Mr. Trump paid alternative minimum tax in seven years between 2000 and 2017 — a total of $24.3 million, excluding refunds he received after filing. For 2015, he paid $641,931, his first payment of any federal income tax since 2010….

(NYTs)

What did the NYTs article show?

  • (a) Trump followed the tax laws; (b) did not pay Cohen [as #nevertrumpers and Democrats said for two years]; (c) nor Russians [or get paid by them – as #nevertrumpers and Democrats said for three years]; (d) and was under audit [as Trump said, and #nevertrumpers and Democrats said was not the case]. (e) Also, as it turns out — the only wire transfers from Moscow were into Hunter Biden’s bank account.

Here is the DAILY HOWLER article referenced by Mark Levin:

….Much more significantly, consider what Buettner says about the AMT—the alternative minimum tax.

As Buettner notes, the AMT was created as a type of substitute for the federal income tax.  If, under the tax code’s welter of rules, an individual ended up owing no income tax, he would have to pay the AMT instead.

Sad! According to the Times, in seven years when Trump “paid no income tax,” he did make AMT submissions—and those submissions totaled slightly more than $24 million.

During those seven years, Trump averaged $3.5 million per year in AMT submissions. Did we mention the fact that the AMT was designed as an alternate form of—as a substitute or replacement for—the federal income tax?

During seven of the years in question, Trump paid no “income tax”—but he paid an average of $3.5 million in the alternative minimum tax! Journalistically, that has to be an all-time example of a “distinction without a difference.”

Sadly, it seems to leave us with only three years when the commander paid no income tax. Let’s review the basic concepts:

The T in AMT does in fact stand for “tax.” (The A stands for “alternative.”)

In other words, the AMT was designed as an alternative form of the income tax. It takes the place of the income tax when, under the rules of the game, no “income tax” is owed.

Yesterday morning, Joe and Mika (literally) didn’t know the first thing the Times had said. Beyond that, it’s hard to tell if the new data the Times acquired covers seventeen or eighteen years….

(“THE ERA WHICH WAS: When DJT paid the AMT!“)

Trump’s Taxes Were Legal!

After the news came out about Trump paying very low taxes in recent years, Larry Elder was left wondering: Where are all the people who are paying more in taxes than they’re legally required to? How would this possibly make sense to a businessman? Meanwhile, experts say there is nothing wrong with arranging your financial affairs to pay the lowest amount of taxes possible. Everyone does it, rich or poor. (See also: “NYTs Buries What Trump Paid in Taxes“)

California Tax Law vs. Federal Law/Constitutional Law

  • And while Brown was no fan of Trump, the former governor contended that compelling the release of tax returns could be unconstitutional, and cautioned that signing the bill would launch a political standoff into unknown territory, like requiring candidates’ birth certificates, health records or report cards (POLITICO)

Both Federal Law and the Constitution protect Presidents from having their tax returns made public. Many of the cases and decisions mentioned in this audio will also defeat California’s bid to do the same. This show was from June of 2019.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U. S. Constitution sets three qualifications for holding the presidency. To serve as president, one must:

  • be a natural-born U.S. citizen of the United States;
  • be at least thirty-five years old;
  • be a resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.

Those are the requirements as stated in the Constitution. Simple.

More via FIND LAW: U.S. TERM LIMITS INC. V. THORNTON

Respondent Hill filed this suit in Arkansas state court challenging the constitutionality of 3 of Amendment 73 to the Arkansas Constitution, which prohibits the name of an otherwise-eligible candidate for Congress from appearing on the general election ballot if that candidate has already served three terms in the House of Representatives or two terms in the Senate. The trial court held that 3 violated Article I of the Federal Constitution, and the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed. A plurality of the latter court concluded that the States have no authority “to change, add to, or diminish” the age, citizenship, and residency requirements for congressional service enumerated in the Qualifications Clauses, U.S. Const., Art. I, 2, cl. 2, and Art. I, 3, cl. 3, and rejected the argument that Amendment 73 is constitutional because it is formulated as a ballot access restriction rather than an outright disqualification of congressional incumbents.

[….]

(b) So too, the Constitution prohibits States from imposing congressional qualifications additional to those specifically enumerated in its text. Petitioners’ argument that States possess control over qualifications as part of the original powers reserved to them by the Tenth Amendment is rejected for two reasons. First, the power to add qualifications is not within the States’ pre-Tenth-Amendment “original powers,” but is a new right arising from the Constitution itself, and thus is not reserved. Second, even if the States possessed some original power in this area, it must be concluded that the Framers intended the Constitution to be the exclusive source of qualifications for Members of Congress, and that the Framers thereby “divested” States of any power to add qualifications. That this is so is demonstrated by the unanimity among the courts and learned commentators who have considered the issue; by the Constitution’s structure and the text of pertinent constitutional provisions, including Art. I, 2, cl. 1, Art. I, 4, cl. 1, Art. I, 6, and Art. I, 5, cl. 1; by the relevant historical materials, including the records of the Constitutional Convention and the ratification debates, as well as Congress’ subsequent experience with state attempts to impose qualifications; and, most importantly, by the “fundamental principle of our representative democracy… `that the people should choose whom they please to govern them,”‘ Powell, 395 U.S., at 547 . Permitting individual States to formulate diverse qualifications for their congressional representatives would result in a patchwork that would be inconsistent with the Framers’ vision of a uniform National Legislature representing the people of the United States. The fact that, immediately after the adoption of the Constitution, many States imposed term limits and other qualifications on state officers, while only one State imposed such a qualification on Members of Congress, provides further persuasive evidence of a general understanding that the qualifications in the Constitution were unalterable by the States. Pp. 18-50….

The Grifting Tax Dodger? Or Patriot?

We are in a “Constitutional crisis,” one reason being is that Democrats cannot get their grubby hands of Trump’s taxes. To wit, Larry Elder “Sages it up” with some history regarding Learned Hand:

Larry then gets into an article discussing the New York Times going bankrupt and the hypocrisy of the paper. Trump has lost lots of $$$ since being in office, the opposite of a grifter: “Trump has lost $1 billion in personal wealth since running for president” (NBC)

The NYTs Rehashed Old News As New News (Trump Taxes)

Rush Limbaugh does a great job in comparing New York Time’s articles from 2016 to this story (2019), as well as the news coverage from those years. He ends the show with the first season of Apprentice, which aired in 2004 — where Donald admits to being dead broke at one point, a billion+ in the hole. It is soo funny what people glom-on-to. I add the opener video to The Apprentice to the beginning, but keep just the audio to Rush’s ending. (“I won, bigly…” This line has always cracked me up! Who says that? Trump does, that’s who.)

See my previous uploads on this here:

Democrats Weaponize the IRS… Again

Dr. John Eastman was on Larry Elder’s show discussing the Democrats wanting Trump’s tax returns. Much like Mitch McConnell warning about “shoes on other’s feet,” the Democrats should tread lightly… because IF this passes Constitutional muster, Trump can order tax returns to be released as well. Good insights from the professor as usual.

How To Turbocharge The American Economy

“Small businesses are the engine of the American economy.”

Roughly half of the United States’ workforce depends on small businesses thriving. But high taxes and intrusive government regulations hurt these businesses and their workers. How would tax cuts for these small businesses benefit the U.S. economy and help just about everyone?

Leftist Scare Tactics About Tax Bill

Larry Elder plays CBS’ tax special with three families (watch the CBS video here at TOWNHALL) from different incomes: (a) little under $40,000 a year; (b) more than $150,000 a year; (c) couple’s combined income was $300,000. Turns out ALL THREE will get a tax return. The Democrats know they are in trouble!

Here Are The Winners And Losers Of The New Tax Law  — In that article is a link to THIS TAX CALCULATOR

The Left Implodes Over A Weak Tax Plan (UPDATED)

GAY PATRIOT comments on the main idea that the Left are a bunch of babies with almost zero understanding of anything economic:

The tax “reform” bill the US Senate passed last night is pretty lame, actually. It keeps the current ridiculous progressive structure of seven separate tax rates. (The House reduced it to four, and the correct number ought to be one.) Susan Collins was bought off by retaining the mortgage interest deduction on vacation homes for millionaires. Freeloaders at the lower income brackets still pay nada. Some high income progressives from blue states are whining because some of their state and local taxes are no longer deductible. Sucks that you progressives in high tax blue states forgot to elect any Republican senators. 

There has also been a lot of howling from the “suddenly we’re concerned about the debt” progressive left that the bill will add $1.5 Trillion to the National Debt over ten years. That figure represents less than 3% of Government expenditures in that time period. Cut Government spending 3% (I’m sure we can get by on 97% of the Government). Problem solved.

It’s a lame bill. Really, the best part of the Senate Bill passing has been watching the histrionic meltdown on the Progressive Left. (But even that gets a little boring considering the progressive left has a histrionic meltdown at literally everything Donald Trump does.)

America died tonight. Economic suicide adopted to feed the insatiable greed of donors, who have been refusing to dole out $ to GOP until they got their tax cuts. Voters fooled by propaganda and tribal hatred. Millenials: move away if you can. USA is over. We killed it. – Kurt “Tentacle Pron” Eichenwald

The Republican Party is the enemy of the American people. The Senate just passed the Trump Tax Increase, 1:50am, enriching the 1% & concentrating wealth in the hands of the few. Capitalism & Fascism. The coup is underway. Make no mistake about it. EVERYONE OFF THE BENCH! 11/6/18! – Michael “I was relevant for a while in 2003” Moore

“While you slept last night Trump’s pedophile-coding GOP broke into your house and raped your children and their future in favor of the Republican’s biggest donors. They groped you too taking your Medicare, social security and Medicaid with them.” – Frank “No I’m Not a Drama Queen at All” Schaeffer

Is there any going back after this #TaxBillScam? To America? Does it matter now if Trump is impeached? There’s no America now. Not the one we knew. Sorry, feeling real despair this morning. – Patton “Who?” Oswalt

Oh, Patti, don’t feel so bad. There are lots of other countries you can move to. Have you considered Mexico? No Republicans there. Strict gun control, too. The Government is very progressive, taxes are very progressive, and economic activated is highly regulated. It’s a lot like California, come to think of it. But with fewer Mexicans……..

POWERLINE opines well with two RAMIREZ TOONS:

  • It is comical to see Democrats feigning outrage over the claim (likely false) that the GOP tax reform plan will add to the national debt. Talk about a head-snapping about face! Where was the Dems’ concern about debt when the Obama administration ran up $10 trillion of it?

UPDATE FROM GAYPATRIOT

….A remarkable thing happened over the weekend; Democrats rediscovered their concern about the national debt, state’s rights, and voter fraud.

The same Democrats who had no problem helping Barack Obama double the national debt to a mind-blowing $20 Trillion have attacked the Republican Senate’s limpwrist “tax reform” bill claiming it will add $1.5 Trillion to the national debt over ten years.

$1.5 Trillion represents less than 3% of Government spending over the next ten years. If that’s a problem, then, by all means, cut spending by 3%.

Democrats are also  suddenly hollering about “state’s rights” because Congress is looking to make concealed carry licenses valid across state lines; like driver’s licenses. (And, yes, most states require training and a background check before a concealed carry license is issued.) The Democrats have suddenly taken a position analogous to claiming Rosa Parks only had the right to sit in the front of the bus while she was in Alabama…..