Donald Trump
Donald Trump
Out of context: Reply #5343
- Started
- Last post
- 12,586 Responses
- monospaced0
If the NYT really does have decades of Trump tax documents, and it's true they legally obtained them, then why are they not releasing them? I assume it's because there are legal reasons why they can't distribute his personal information, but if that's true, then why are they allowed to "report" on the report highlights at all?
In this day and age, especially with Trump, accusations and reports aren't enough. Show us the goods, NYT, and do the right thing.
- Protecting the source. And yes, due diligence.fadein11
- If they were soured legally, would the source need protecting? It's not whistleblowing exactly, as I understand it.monospaced
- Why are you questioning that they really have the docs? You think NYT would make it up?yuekit
- if they were legally obtained who's there to protect?renderedred
- The documents were almost certainly not legally leaked. But it's not illegal for journalists to write about something simply because of that.yuekit
- nope guess not, I imagine it's a legal minefield releasing personal financial info in detail. it's kind of an overview? But yes, the gravy would be nice.fadein11
- Remember Wikileaks and Hillary Clinton's emails? NYT covered all of that.yuekit
- If they are incorrect why Trump wouldn’t release the “correct” version then?zaq
- I'm just not convinced a couple of single-line bites like "he paid $750 one year" is enough to do any damage. There has to be proof.monospaced
- I'm not saying they don't have the docs, yuekit. I'm saying they need to show them in order for the public to be swayed.monospaced
- The NYT claims they were legally obtained. Are you implying they were illegally obtained and are now lying? I'm confused.monospaced
- I don't think anyone is really questioning it, even Trump himself seems to acknowledge it's real.yuekit
- I'm not questioning if it's real either, dude. But Trump cocksuckers will. :)monospaced
- There's no way someone's tax records could be legally given to a newspaper. The reality is that people break the law all the time to leak stories.yuekit
- The documents themselves probably have some identifying info that would give away the source of the leak.yuekit
- I agree and that's precisely why I am perplexed by their claim they were legally obtained. I fear this will die in the water :(monospaced
- Simply claiming you have something, these days, is not enough. Not for the bobos out there, at least.monospaced
- I don't see where they claimed that. In fact it says "We are not making the records themselves public because we do not want to jeopardize our sources, who haveyuekit
- sources, who have taken enormous personal risks to help inform the public."yuekit
- Hmm, the article I read yesterday said they claimed they were legally obtained. I will see if I can find it. I'm more than happy to be wrong :)monospaced
- "...but this appears to be the most detailed collection of data about his finances. The Times said all the records were legally obtained."monospaced
- https://www.marketwa…monospaced
- I think what they mean is that it's legal for the paper to publish the docs. There are certain situations where it might not be, like if they literally hackedyuekit
- into the IRS or something lol. Whereas if someone handed it off to them with no involvement by the NYT, that counts as being legally obtained.yuekit
- I assume that's the case in order for them to be releasing it and claiming legal adherence at the same time.monospaced
- Haha mono gets it. Seeing a bit past the veil where it's all show and no substance********