NY Times: Trump Tax Story Raises Thorny Issues

No journalist has bothered to question how The New York Times obtained copies of President Trump's tax returns.  In a pre-October election surprise, the Times claimed in a page-one story that Mr. Trump paid $750 in federal taxes.  The revelation raises serious legal and ethical issues for the publisher.   

For the record, the Times report said Mr. Trump paid only $750 in taxes in 2016 and that the president paid no taxes in 10 of the past 15 years.  The Times did not disclose the source of its information.  This has become standard procedure at the Times, smearing the president based on unnamed informants.

There was a time when journalistic ethics required at least one person to go on the record to collaborate information obtained from anonymous sources.  That principle has been shredded by the Times and its editors. The newspaper prefers to hide behind a iron curtain of secrecy for its most salacious reporting. 

Here are just a few recent headlines: Trump will dump Mike Pence from the ticket; The Mueller Report will tie Trump to Russian collusion; President Trump will not walk away from a nuclear deal with North Korea; Former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein threatens to resign.

All these stories were based on anonymous sources.  The reporting had one other thing in common.  Not a single article turned out to be true.  These stories cited are just the tip of the iceberg.  There are literally scores of examples involving Mr. Trump.  Fairness and impartiality are quaint canons at the Times.

Trump organization lawyer Alan Garten, who spoke on the record, ripped the Times reporting.  "The New York Times story is riddled with gross inaccuracies.  Over the decades, the President has paid tens of millions of dollars in personal taxes to the federal government. " Garten actually has seen the tax filings.

The attorney went on the complain that he reached out to the Times to explain the tax situation but his "repeated requests" to the newspaper for proof of its claims were rejected. Why is the Times unwilling to share its source material if indeed the story is true? Whom are they protecting?  

Based on its past reporting and ethical lapses, there should be an ocean of skepticism until there is collaboration from an independent source.   Of course,  the unsubstantiated charge hasn't prevented Democrats from flogging the tax contrivance to damage the Trump campaign.

It might be just a coincidence that the Times detonated the bombshell the Sunday before the first presidential debate.  But that would strain the bounds of credulity.  Using the Times reporting, Democrat candidate Joe Biden had air cover to torpedo Mr. Trump during the debates about the tax returns.

Expect the editorial fusillade to continue.  The Times promised their "massive investigation" is just a preview of coming attractions.  The newspaper revealed "additional articles will be published in the coming weeks." This smacks of collusion between the Biden campaign and the Times.  

The Times radioactive projectile failed  to mention a pertinent fact. The Washington Post on October 3, 2016, ran an article about Mr. Trump's 1995 tax return.  In its reporting, the Post noted Mr. Trump declared a net operating loss of $916 million that tax year because of losses at his Atlantic City casinos.

Under Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rules, Mr. Trump is allowed to carry forward that loss, offsetting it against future taxable income. The Post reported the $916 million loss will "allow him (Trump) to avoid taxes for up to 18 years."  The newspaper did not accuse Mr. Trump of shady accounting.  

Mr. Trump simply took advantage of the tax code.  The same way one of the world richest men Warren Buffet does.  In 2011, Mr. Buffet publicly disclosed his taxable income was $39.8 million.  He paid a 17% tax rate, far below his secretary whose income was taxed at 36%.  Buffet used tax laws to his benefit.

This is not the first time Mr. Trump's tax returns have been leaked to the media. In 2017, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow obtained a portion of the president's 2005 tax return.  According to the report, Mr. Trump paid $38 million in taxes, an effective rate of about 24.5%.  Maddow mentioned no tax shenanigans.  

While the Times manufactured outrage over Mr. Trump's tax filings, no legal scholar stepped forward to challenge the unauthorized disclosure of an individual's federal tax data.  The IRS code, Section 7213, makes it unlawful for any government officer or employee to disclose personal return data.

The code specifically mentions federal as well as state employees. IRS rules make it unlawful to "willfully print or publish in any manner not provided by law any such return or return information." A violation is punishable by imprisonment of not more than five years and/or a fine of up to $5,000.

If employees at the IRS or New York state revenue agency leaked the data to The New York Times those individuals broke the law. Partisans will claim it is the president's fault for not opening his tax records to the public.  But Mr. Trump is not required by the Constitution or federal law to comply.

Is Mr. Trump hiding something?  The same question should be directed at The New York Times.  Where did the journalists who wrote the story get the tax return information? What is the Times hiding by not publishing the actual tax returns upon which the inflammatory article was based?

Since the Times is so offended by individuals who pay no federal taxes, it is worth noting that a certain New York City newspaper paid ZERO to the federal government in 2017, according to a published accusation.  Can you guess the the name of the publishing company? That's right, The New York Times.

The Times reported $111 million in income that year.  The Times has never disputed that allegation, instead defending itself by claiming the request is "an attempt to distract from our newsroom's ongoing investigation into President Trump's taxes..." The evasion clumsily dodges a public acknowledgement.

The question of how much federal tax the Times pays has never been disclosed.  Public firms are required to file reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including tax estimates. But the numbers recorded on their financial statements are often different than the amount these firms pay the IRS.

The only way to know for certain is for the august New York Times to divulge its federal tax returns for the last 10 years.  Of course, the publishing firm is not required to report that data to the public.  Nor is President Trump obligated under any law to publicly expose his federal or state tax return amounts.

If you think President Trump deserves this kind of treatment, ask yourself if you would be willing to unseal your tax returns for publication in The New York Times? If this can happen to the president of the United States, what protects ordinary Americans from this kind of unauthorized invasion of privacy?

The answer is nothing.  That should be troubling to even the most partisan Democrat.  

NY Times: An Oligarch's Crusade Against Trump

The New York Times' once esteemed credibility now ranks on par with that tattletale rag the National Enquirer. The Times' pages have been stained with anonymous sourced articles, alleged leaked memos and scurrilous dossiers.  Today the news that fits in the Times is unfit for belief.

The Times, once known as the Gray Lady for its conservative design and typography, is little more than a Lady of the Evening, hawking her faded charms to a dwindling, aging group of readers.  Ever since the paper embarked on its Russian Collusion Crusade, journalism has been exiled.

In case you don't read the Times, you are not alone  The newspaper's average paid daily circulation has nosedived from its zenith of 1.92 million in 2013 to 590,000 at the end of last year.  It's decline allowed a Mexican billionaire to swoop in and claim one of America's oldest newspapers. 

Carlos Slim, one of the world's richest men with a fortune estimated at $62 billion, exercised warrants he acquired in 2009 to become a 16.8 percent majority share owner in 2015.  Despite denials by The Times' publisher, Slim's well-known disdain for President Trump now steers the editorial direction.

Over the years, Slim has funneled multi-million dollar donations to the Clinton Foundation both as an individual and through charitable entities he controls.  His Telmex Foundation has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to Hillary Clinton for speeches to the organization.

Like Ms. Clinton, Slim favors an open border with Mexico, abhors the idea of a wall between his country and the United States, and loathes deportation of illegal immigrants. His opinions are not altruistic, but are tied to his business interests in Mexico.

The billionaire, once referred to as a 'robber baron' on the pages of The New York Times, owns some 200 companies, including banks, telecommunications firms, retail establishments, airlines, railways, hotels, printing and tobacco companies.  Most interests are under the holding company Grupo Carso.

Illegal and legal Mexican immigrants in the U.S. wire billions home through banks with ties to Slim. Phone calls from this same group generate a steady stream of income for Slim's land line and mobile telecommunications businesses.  More Mexicans in the U.S. equals more profit for Slim.

Even before Mr. Trump was elected president, Slim's newspaper assigned a team of investigative reporters to plumb for muck on the candidate.  After the inauguration, the Times launched a witch hunt for rumors of collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign.

A glut of articles with spurious sources began dotting the paper. Several, including one that featured sordid details of a fake dossier on Mr. Trump, have proven false.  But that hasn't stopped the paper from using undisclosed sources to daily smear the Trump Administration.

In February, the Times breathlessly reported that the Russian intelligence apparatus had contacts with the Trump campaign and associates.  The article became the launchpad for a series of wordy tomes on how team Trump conspired to steal the election from Hillary Clinton.

However, in June former FBI director James Comey in an appearance before the Senate Intelligence Committee debunked the story under oath.  Comey called The New York Times reporting on the Trump conspiracy "not true."  He should have called it a damnable lie.

The latest Times hit-piece about Donald Trump Jr. is long on innuendo and short on evidence of wrongdoing.  Unsubstantiated fabrications have replaced unbiased reporting.  Apparently, the Times sold its journalistic principles along with the 166-year-old newspaper's assets to Slim.

Slim knows the Times' anti-Trump campaign plays well politically in his home country of Mexico. A sealed border is anathema to the country's political establishment.  By leading the effort to sabotage the Trump Administration, Slim wants to enhance his political influence in Mexico.

His image could use some burnishing.  Leaders from Mexico's three political parties have all agreed to confront Slim over his dominance in telecommunications and other industries.  Don't take our word. It was reported in the Times in 2016.  But then the newsroom got new marching orders.

Now The New York Times has only praise for Carlos Slim.  Money talks even as the Times remains silent about the majority owner's political vendetta.