Maddow's Trump Tax Return announcement

Politics & Elections
141

I’ve never watched the Rachel Maddow show with any regularity. I have watched clips of her show when something has made the news for whatever reason. But I have watched most of the last week or 10 days of her show. They have been riviting (in her slow paced kind of way). I really like the way she builds a case, and also the questions she develops when speaking about any topic.

On her show with guest David Cay Johnston and the two pages of Trump’s 2005 tax return, Maddow and Johnston discussed the content of the little bit of Trump’s tax returns that came in the mail to Johnston’s home. They hightlighed the effect that the repeal of the alternative minimum tax (AMT) that Trump supports would have on Trump. That’s a big ticket item.

Without the ATM, Trump’s tax rate would be reduced from 24% to about 3.5%

Johnston explains that 24% is the rate a married couple earning $400,000 a year (a year) would pay. He said that the 3.5% would be the rate of someone earning under $33,000 a year would pay.

Johnston says that in 2005, the Trumps made $418,000 a day according to the tax filing and that using the AMT allowed Trump to reduce the percent he would normally have paid at his income level from 35% to 24%- a 20% discount.
Questions Maddow asked included:
Where is the rest of the return?
What were the sources of the income?
What tax policy change is Trump proposing and how would those changes affect his income taxes.
Trump took an almost 1 billion dollar loss in 1995 that he was able to “write down” for 18 years. Its possible that 2004 was the first year that he didn’t have this “write down” available any longer.
Questions David Cay Johnston asked:
Why is Trump hiding his tax returns?
Trump has a history of ties to criminals, mobsters, Russian oligarchs/mob bosses, drug kingpins, etc. So where does Trump’s money come from? Who is he paying?

In the follow-up to the tax reveal segement, some of Maddow’s questions were:

How did the tax forms find their way to David Cay Johnston mailbox?
-Who released them?
-“Is there more where this came from and we please have it?” (Maddow said that.)
-Did Trump, or a Trump designated person at Trump’s request, released them? (The tax form is marked “Client Copy”.)
-Why this particluar year?
-This particular return seems to show Trump in a favorable light. If all his returns do the same, why not release those?
-Was this year “cherry-picked” and an atypical return? (Pointing out that this is the first joint return filed following Trump’s marriage to Melania, who was not yet a US citizen. She was required to have a return for naturalization and thus the return needed to be squeaky clean.

Maddow notes that this was the same year (2005) that an unflattering book by Tim O’Brian came out about Trump,and that Trump sued over O’Brian for saying that Trump was lying about his net worth. The case was dismissed because Trump could not prove that O’Brian was wrong about Trump’s net worth.

Maddow also notes that in 2005, Trump joined Bayrock- a company with ties to Russian organized crime, to develop Trump Tower Moscow.
Maddow asked ‘What are the national security implications of not knowing Trump’s financial ties?’
The White House verified that these are Trump’s taxes (rather quickly, in my opinion), Trump, “has a long history of leaking things about himself and doing it indirectly and directly” according to Johnston, seemed to offer only some token upset to having this return released.
Donald Trump, Junior, who Tweeted about it quite a bit, seemed quited pleased and proud of the tax return. If they are so proud of their returns, why not release others?

What was the time frame between the announcement that Johnston/Maddow had the tax returns and when the White House/Trump commented on it? Is it odd that the White House knew the dollar figures in the return? I don’t know the figures from my 2005 return.

Trump Tweeted about Johnston “Does anybody really believe that a reporter, who nobody ever heard of, ‘went to his mailbox’ and found my tax returns? @NBCNews FAKE NEWS!”

Trump has known Johnston for over 20 years. In 2016, Johnston, who has won a Pulitzer Prixe, wrote a book about Trump called “The Making of Donald Trump”.

The envelope that the two pages of tax return Johnston received were postmarked from Westchester, NY. Trump has a home there and at least some members of his family were there at or about the same time the the envelope was mailed. We know this because some Secret Service guy got in trouble for taking a selfie with Trump’s sleeping granson in the background. I wonder who all in the Trump clan was at the Westchester property at this time. Secret Service investigated for selfies with Trump's sleeping grandson

142

I wish I could correct a sentence above to:

Without the ATM, the rate Trump paid in 2005 would have been reduced from 24% to about 3.5%.

And correct all my other typos…

143

It would be best if you immediately expanded on this, naming specific names.

And… Russian Oligarchs are not gangsters or mob bosses: they are a particular small set of men who were enriched by the Clinton/Harvard/Larry Summers neo-liberal revitalization of the exUSSR’S economic policies which prescribed austerity for the masses and privatization of state assets to the Oligarchs. You could make links between them and any American president since.

144

The oligarchs the Kremlin, and the mob, in russia, are in the same pool chasing the same $. How differentiated do you think they could possibly be? It’s called organized crime for a reason. Disorganized crime didn’t work out so well and there was no need to redo the experiment.

You should watch more Maddow. They got the oligarchs plane in the same airport as donald’s a lot. You know, the same one who paid donald a 50 million profit for his house that was bought a couple years prior. That donald said he never met, that one.

145

No problem man. Thanks for sticking up for the only long form investigative journalist on tv. She is going to be very important in the coming months.

People here tend towards some kind of conventional wisdom that amounts to ignorance a lot of the time.

146

Actually they tend to hysterical hatred of Trump and yap out feeble unevidenced scattershot rumours and demented theories of his wickedness.

So it was with FDR, so it was with Bill Clinton, so it was with Obama, so it was with various earlier presidents.

ONLY fully sourced and irrefutable attacks should be made against Trump — or any other — all the uncontrolled nonsense of dismissible crap achieves is to make him stronger.

147

The last paragraph has me worried for you. I’m serious. Also you seem to be opposed to investigative journalism. You should know how fundamental this is to our country.

Anyway, I haven’t seen what you are talking about at all. People here may be repulsed by donald because of his behavior and statements. Nothing more than that is needed.

148

Would that be the same Trump who accused Obama of a felony, based on something he heard from a 9-11 Truther that even Fox News is disavowing?

149

This was Johnston’s assessment of Trump. Johnston has followed Trump’s career for about 30 years and wrote a book about Trump (including his business and personal ties to these shady characters) last year. I have not read Johnston’s book.

One reviewer of the book said ‘If ten percent of Johnston’s book is true, Trump is unfit for office.’

150

Honestly, I blame the format as much as anything. Seems like most of these shows end up being more about the “star” than about the content. RM is easily the most intelligent talking head out there with her own show, but I do appreciate her only when she’s on someone else’s show. She really shines once she’s out of her own spotlight.

151

Except this Maddow piece will not have highlighted that Trump says he will try to get rid of loopholes at the same time as getting rid of the AMT. Therefore, no-one has a damn clue what Trump’s tax bill would have been if he gets his way. Instead, Maddow and Johnston simply highlighted the lowest tax bill possible for Donald Trump (with AMT repealed) and failed to mention the proposed reduction in loopholes.

152

I’ve come to appreciate her style.

Yes, she can be slow, but she uses that to show clear lines and relationships between people and events. Sometimes it seems she is just taking baby steps and I’m used to consuming information at a much faster pace, but not everyone digests news at a fast pace.

It’s because she moves so slowly, asks questions, and repeats things in different but understandable ways that the average person can follow complex stories. This Trump-Russia story is a highly complex story that requires a lot of background and detail.

Maddox does this very well.

153

bolding is mine

Time to challenge this assertion as it relates to a general case. Strictly speaking filing IRS returns is not required. There are other means of showing sufficient financial means so as to satisfy the government that the immigrating/naturalizing spouse will not be a financial burden on society.

I have no particular knowledge of what documents were submitted to support Melania Trump’s application for naturalization and agree that submitting copies of IRS returns was likely the most straightforward means of doing so.

WARNING. Extreme pedantry follows:

While submitting an IRS return is certainly the easiest way to meet certain requirements of the immigration process, it is not the only way and is not required in the general case.

Let’s look at the relevant part of the USCIS documents checklist for a naturalization application:

To nitpick in the extreme, clearly a IRS transcript could be submitted in lieu of the IRS returns. An IRS transcript is not simply a photocopy of the IRS return thought it contains much the same data. (Any Doper parent who has recently filled out the FAFSA financial aid application may be familiar with the requirement to submit an IRS transcript.)

But moreover, this checklist assumes the American spouse has filed an income tax return. In the edge case that is not always true.

Take the case of an American citizen living abroad who has no income of his/her own and who is dependent upon the income and/or assets of his/her non-American spouse*. Without reaching the mandatory filing threshold for income the American need not file a tax return. And since the non-American spouse is not a resident of the United States yet he/she need not file an IRS return.

Should this couple decide to relocate to the United States the American citizen could sponsor the immigration and subsequent naturalization of his/her spouse by filing documents relying solely on the naturalizing spouse’s assets. (pdf link Instructions for I-864 Affidavit of Support. see page 8 which states:

It’s true that residence overseas does not relive an American from the obligation to file, but it does not mandate a filing when income is too low to otherwise require a filing.

The I-864 instruction go on to detail use of assets in lieu of evidence of qualifying income in support of an application for naturalization.

*(If you find such a couple too hypothetical, think of a retired couple who live off the pension/savings of the non-American spouse. Upon application for immigration the non-American spouse could place a suitable amount of funds on deposit in a US bank to meet the asset requirements.)

154

I have come to the conclusion that she is the only long form investigative reporter on tv.

Also she may have a script and cards but it seems she wants to keep a tone of spontaneity and informality, at the same time as explaining complicated journalism. So the peanut gallery has an opinion about it? Pretty sure if she was a male it would be different.

155

Great…So, when he releases his tax bill, I look forward to Trump walking us through his taxes and explaining how his proposed changes to the tax code would not have particularly benefited him in the past nor are likely to in the future. Oh, he is not going to do that? Well, then I think it is only fair that we get to surmise on the basis of what we have been able, no thanks to Trump, to get access to. He’s not entitled to be given the benefit of the doubt when it is his own obstruction that is responsible for the uncertainty.

Personally, I think the Press was far too “responsible” in not engaging in various speculations about Trump and what might be hiding in his taxes. If they are jumping to unwarranted conclusions, then he has the power to set them straight. If he doesn’t, then let’s speculate until the cows come home. Trump will only releases his taxes when what everyone believes is in them is worse than what is actually in them. It is incumbent on the press, and frankly all of us, to hasten when that occurs.

156

I stopped watching her when she started to habitually drag the revelation of something or another through 4 or 5 commercial breaks. The main problem with her show (I think) is that it needs to be half an hour long with occasional hour long episodes when they actually have something that warrants an hour. I think she could really benefit from a half hour show with occasional specials.

157

Wait, are you actually saying that the press should “speculate” Are you frikking kidding me?

The most likely thing in Trump’s tax returns is that he isn’t nearly as rich as he claims and he has taken a bunch of shady deductions in the past.

158

But would MSNBC benefit? Her show has the highest ratings MSNBC has ever had in the 9:00 PM slot.

159

There isn’t any uncertainty. The idea that Trump cheated on his taxes is faith-based, and not subject to falsification.

It’s the standard approach.

[ul][li]Assume that Trump (or Romney, back in 2012) cheated on his taxes.[/li][li]If Trump (or Romney) doesn’t prove he didn’t, that proves he’s guilty of cheating on his taxes.[/li][li]Maddow gets hold of an illegally obtained copy of one of Trump’s returns.[/li][li]MS/NBC schedules a whole news program wherein she proves pretty clearly that Trump didn’t cheat on his taxes.[/li][li]Repeat the assumption that Trump cheated on his other tax returns, and try again.[/ul]This is like a conspiracy theory. The lack of evidence proves there really is a conspiracy. Therefore, the more evidence that is discredited, the more that proves the conspiracy.[/li]
Regards,
Shodan

160

Why is cheating on a tax return not subject to falsification? People do it, get caught, get penalized all the time. Is it different for orange?

But you did say the return proves something.(?) It proves he didn’t cheat? But it was two pages of a massive return.

You are incomprehensible today. But if you say conspiracy enough maybe you can distract someone. The problem is the only people who could be distracted by this kind of thing are already trump voters. Sad.