Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, March 15, 2017

The White House confirmed Tuesday night that President Donald Trump paid $38 million in federal income tax on more than $150 million in income for 2005 after MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show said it would release the details. DCReport.org obtained two pages from what it said were Trump's 2005 Form 1040. The site's founder, David Cay Johnston, a former reporter for The New York Times, disclosed the details of the two pages, which he said were sent to him through the U.S. Postal Service, on Maddow's program. The pages come from a part of the return that doesn't break down Trump's specific sources of income. In broader terms, the pages reveal that Trump reported about $152 million in income -- $67 million of it in rental income, about 60 percent more than he reported from his general business interests.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Johnston writes, "DCReport has obtained Donald Trump's Form 1040 federal tax return for 2005. There's no smoking gun there, no obvious evasion, but clearly some bending of the tax laws almost to the breaking point. The document offers a rare glimpse at how a super wealthy couple can manipulate and manage our complex tax laws to reduce their obligations far below rates paid by typical salaried professionals or even blue-collar wage earners. ..."

"The Trumps paid just $5.3 million of regular federal income tax. Measured against their cash income of almost $153 million their federal income tax rate was 3.48%."

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

trump leaks 2005 taxes.
pretends to get mad about it.
somehow blames snoop dog?

#1 | Posted by klifferd at 2017-03-15 09:40 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Distraction from little d to get the narrative away from trainwreck Trumpcare and Comey's FBI Russia investigation presser.

#2 | Posted by 726 at 2017-03-15 09:42 AM | Reply

I agree with Klifferd. He probably leaked the return that had the least amount of shenanigans.

#3 | Posted by Sully at 2017-03-15 09:44 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

1. He paid his taxes
2. He paid a higher rate than most people

Nothing to see here. Move along.

#4 | Posted by boaz at 2017-03-15 09:52 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Full release should be no problem now.

#5 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-03-15 10:03 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#4
Why do you even bother engaging these wackos?

#6 | Posted by blake914 at 2017-03-15 10:04 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

As I said on the much older duplicate thread: Maddow got pwned. She was given a little bit of rope and hung herself with it.

#7 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-03-15 10:10 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

25% that's pretty high compared to Obama, Clinton, Sanders...they all paid under 20%

#8 | Posted by Maverick at 2017-03-15 10:12 AM | Reply

Nothing to see here. Move along.

Your Jedi mind trick needs a little work.

Obviously there's a lot more to see in his taxes. This is just the cover pages. His sources of income could tell us a lot about whether he's crooked, very crooked, extremely crooked or the most crooked president of all time.

#9 | Posted by rcade at 2017-03-15 10:15 AM | Reply

He paid his taxes in 2005, so did I. I also paid my taxes in all the subsequent years and I can prove it, can Trump?

#10 | Posted by danni at 2017-03-15 10:16 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Advertisement

Advertisement

Nothing to see here. Move along.
#4 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Donald's the one who made this a thing. If there's "nothing to see here" then why doesn't he release his returns?

#11 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2017-03-15 10:16 AM | Reply

If there's nothing to see, why doesn't Obama release his college transcripts?

#12 | Posted by boaz at 2017-03-15 10:17 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

What did we learn? Not much because, as those 53% of us that actually pay federal income taxes already know, tax forms don't have much detail. Candidates and elected officials are required to make financial disclosures, perhaps those are the forms in which you should be looking.

#13 | Posted by visitor_ at 2017-03-15 10:30 AM | Reply

"If there's nothing to see, why doesn't Obama release his college transcripts?"

What office is Obama running for? Donald doesn't want us to "run along." This is a distraction from something coming soon, probably some connection to the Russians which he hopes we'll be too busy chattering about his tax return to notice.

#14 | Posted by danni at 2017-03-15 10:33 AM | Reply

Stellar night for the left. SJW Maddow took off the gloves and really gave it to Obama last night when she revealed Trump paid a higher tax rate.

Confusion ensued...

#16 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2017-03-15 10:42 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

If there's nothing to see, why doesn't Obama release his college transcripts?

Tax returns reveal who a presidential candidate has done business with and whether there are conflicts of interest or potential issues of criminality. The rationale for the public needing to see them is so obvious that all candidates going back to Nixon released them.

College transcripts don't reveal any of that, so there's neither a tradition nor expectation they will be released.

If it wasn't for Trump's racist birther nonsense you'd never be asking about Obama's transcripts. It's pretty sad that's still going on even after he left office. You know, like Trump knows, that Obama is an American citizen born in the United States.

#17 | Posted by rcade at 2017-03-15 10:46 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#18 | Posted by sawdust at 2017-03

Bizarre, Crazy. Dishonest. Unpatriotic.

#19 | Posted by Zed at 2017-03-15 10:52 AM | Reply

so what does Snoop dog have to do with any of this?

#20 | Posted by klifferd at 2017-03-15 10:53 AM | Reply

Stellar night for the left. SJW Maddow took off the gloves and really gave it to Obama last night when she revealed Trump paid a higher tax rate.

Confusion ensued...

#16 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2017

No one is confused. But there is a mystery. That is, a mystery beyond conservatives no longer caring if a president grifts millions off of high office and stuff like that.

The mystery is: Why just the one year? Why just 2005? And why was Donald ready to reveal he's been lying about that IRS audit by releasing the same information himself?

#22 | Posted by Zed at 2017-03-15 10:55 AM | Reply

Nothing to see here. Move along.

#4 | Posted by boaz

Hook, line, and sinker. So predictable.

#23 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-03-15 10:56 AM | Reply

What office is Obama running for?

#14 | Posted by danni

Two follow-on questions, counselor...

What office is Trump running for?
What office WAS Obama running for?

For the record...I don't care about Obama's transcripts. However, I do want to see his college entrance paperwork, to see if he listed himself as a foreign student.

#24 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-03-15 10:56 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Tax returns reveal who a presidential candidate...
#17 | POSTED BY RCADE

Then pass a law that requires it. History, tradition, nostalgia, and 'just because' aren't good enough.

#25 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-03-15 10:57 AM | Reply

You're being played. like a fiddle.

#21 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-03-15 10:54 AM |

I want to know if Donald is a traitor. As do a lot of people. I want to know if Donald is a crook as well as a maggot. As do a lot of people.

How do you figure anyone's being played?

#26 | Posted by Zed at 2017-03-15 10:57 AM | Reply

Only those who reside in the echo chamber of the left care about Trump's taxes.

#18 | Posted by sawdust

Only those who reside up trump's rump DONT care about trump's taxes.

#27 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-03-15 10:58 AM | Reply

For the record...I don't care about Obama's transcripts. However, I do want to see his college entrance paperwork, to see if he listed himself as a foreign student.

#24 | Posted by MUSTANG

Yet you DONT want to see trump's taxes see if he is a treasonous criminal?

#28 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-03-15 10:59 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Then pass a law that requires it. History, tradition, nostalgia, and 'just because' aren't good enough.

#25 | Posted by SheepleSchism at

Damn you hate this country.

These things are always good enough for honorable men.

Starting to understand why people hate Donald yet?

#29 | Posted by Zed at 2017-03-15 10:59 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

If he broke the law filing a tax return, don't you think the IRS would have said something?

#30 | Posted by boaz at 2017-03-15 11:00 AM | Reply

Step 1: Withhold tax filings. Step 2. Let Liberal MSM dig huge hole about tax returns. Step 3: "leak" my own tax papers proving them wrong. Step 4: Winning!

#31 | Posted by gracieamazed at 2017-03-15 11:02 AM | Reply | Funny: 2

Full release should be no problem now.

#5 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017

Absolutely. Let Donald really put us all in our places. Or does he actually enjoy the drama of half the country suspecting he's a master criminal?

#32 | Posted by Zed at 2017-03-15 11:02 AM | Reply

Are these Trumps private tax returns or public tax returns?

#33 | Posted by aescal at 2017-03-15 11:03 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Step 4: Winning!

#31 | Posted by gracieamazed at

Full release should be no problem now.

#34 | Posted by Zed at 2017-03-15 11:03 AM | Reply

I want to know if Donald is a traitor. As do a lot of people. I want to know if Donald is a crook as well as a maggot. As do a lot of people.
How do you figure anyone's being played?

#26 | POSTED BY ZED

Donald isn't a traitor, Zed. He's a loudmouth NYC real estate mogul.

He's also a maggot, and will be potus until 2024. because chickens-with-their-heads-cut-off are running in circles clucking for Russian spies.

#35 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-03-15 11:04 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

These things are always good enough for honorable men.
#29 | POSTED BY ZED

What makes you believe that billionaires are 'honorable men'?

#36 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-03-15 11:06 AM | Reply

He's also a maggot

#35 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 20

You trust maggots? Really?

Donald just needs to do what he promised to do, release his finances. Like he promised repeatedly that he would do.

#37 | Posted by Zed at 2017-03-15 11:06 AM | Reply

What makes you believe that billionaires are 'honorable men'?

#36 | Posted by SheepleSchism at

This is sophism.

US presidents should be honorable men.

#38 | Posted by Zed at 2017-03-15 11:07 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

BREAKING NEWS:
CNN reported Bevis Buttinski has insider information that President Trump calculates his own taxes using turbo tax.
Apparently He fired his CPA team because they had him paying less than his fair share.

#39 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2017-03-15 11:14 AM | Reply

Bizarre, Crazy. Dishonest. Unpatriotic.

#19 | POSTED BY ZED AT 2017-03-15 10:52 AM | REPLY | FLAG

I'll tell you what's unpatriotic, it's after seeing that Trump paid 25% in taxes and the same bums that were chirping for people to pay their fair share paid far less. Obama 19% and Sanders 13%. Shame on both of them.

#40 | Posted by fishpaw at 2017-03-15 11:18 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

- You trust maggots? Really?

Of course not, and clucking is not organizing for 2018, Zed.

But don't let that stop the scratching, pecking, and wing flapping.

#41 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-03-15 11:20 AM | Reply

US presidents should be honorable men.
#38 | POSTED BY ZED

I thought you voted for a woman.

#42 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-03-15 11:20 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#40 | Posted by fishpaw

Stop being stupid, and start being a patriot.

There are questions vital to the health of the Republic that Donald needs to answer about his money.

Arguments to the contrary are simply digging that hole you seem to love so much deeper.

#43 | Posted by Zed at 2017-03-15 11:22 AM | Reply

I thought you voted for a woman.

#42 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017

Yeah, and I thought you were from New Jersey, or somewhere else this side of the Atlantic.

#44 | Posted by Zed at 2017-03-15 11:23 AM | Reply

#42 Kindof

#45 | Posted by fishpaw at 2017-03-15 11:23 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Of course not, and clucking is not organizing for 2018, Zed.

#41 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017

I have a full and effective life apart from this blog, but thanks for the concern.

#46 | Posted by Zed at 2017-03-15 11:24 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

#46 define 'effective'.

#47 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-03-15 11:26 AM | Reply

Stop being stupid, and start being a patriot.
There are questions vital to the health of the Republic that Donald needs to answer about his money.
Arguments to the contrary are simply digging that hole you seem to love so much deeper.

#43 | POSTED BY ZED AT 2017-03-15 11:22 AM | FLAG:

Why don't you respond to what I wrote? They were the ones saying everyone needs to pay their fair share and sheep like you bought it. You should be pissed unless you are just a typical political hack.

#48 | Posted by fishpaw at 2017-03-15 11:26 AM | Reply

"...and I thought you were from New Jersey, or somewhere else this side of the Atlantic." - #44 | Posted by Zed at 2017-03-15 11:23 AM

Consider the source, Zed: SheepleSchism is a proven liar.

#49 | Posted by Hans at 2017-03-15 11:27 AM | Reply

Hans Stalker Solo

#50 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-03-15 11:31 AM | Reply

It's up to you on the left to Stand Up and Resist the false narrative.

It is your Patriotic duty to say Enough is Enough.

We shall see who puts party above country.

#51 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2017-03-15 11:32 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Donald isn't a traitor, Zed. He's a loudmouth NYC real estate mogul.

He's also a maggot, and will be potus until 2024. because chickens-with-their-heads-cut-off are running in circles clucking for Russian spies.

#35 | Posted by SheepleSchism

If he's doing favors for russia in exchange for their help in the election, then he's a traitor. And so far every sign points to that being the case.

#52 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-03-15 11:32 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If he's doing favors for russia in exchange for their help in the election, then he's a traitor. And so far every sign points to that being the case.

#52 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

I haven't seen anything that has been even remotely substantiated.

#53 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-03-15 11:33 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

"I haven't seen anything that has been even remotely substantiated"

A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest.

Let's start here. First of all do you agree that the Russians tried to hack our election?

#54 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-03-15 11:44 AM | Reply

Define "hack our election."

#55 | Posted by visitor_ at 2017-03-15 11:46 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I only watched about the first 10 minutes of Maddow. When all she opened the show making unsubstantiated allegations based only on speculation, I know there was nothing going to be nothing to see.

Had there been proof Trump evaded taxes or conspired with the Russians, that would have been the opening and the rest of the show would have been going over it in detail.

I wasn't shocked to find out this morning that there was nothing to it.

It was funny how by morning time, the left wing speculation had changed to "Trump leaked it" in an attempt to save face. However, if that were the case, it would mean Maddow was stupid enough to get trolled by Trump.

#56 | Posted by jamesgelliott at 2017-03-15 11:49 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

To hack the election means that the Russians hacked into the voting booths and changed the numbers. There is no evidence of that, except that the left just can't accept the fact that however bad Trump is......He STILL beat Clinton.

#57 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2017-03-15 11:50 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Full release should be no problem now.

#34 | Posted by Zed

After Bernie pays his fair share. For a guy who believes in socialism, he sure has short arms and deep pockets, Zeddy

#58 | Posted by wisgod at 2017-03-15 11:59 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"To hack the election means that the Russians hacked into the voting booths and changed the numbers." - #57 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2017-03-15 11:50 AM

No, that's not what it means.

#59 | Posted by Hans at 2017-03-15 12:00 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

No, that's not what it means.

Yes, it does.

#60 | Posted by boaz at 2017-03-15 12:01 PM | Reply

Yet you DONT want to see trump's taxes see if he is a treasonous criminal?

#28 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2017-03-15 10:59 AM | FLAG: | NEWS

I trust the IRS, if there was a problem then the IRS and
especially the IRS would have let us know along time ago. Go turn on MSNBC and wait for the next big scoop.

#61 | Posted by fishpaw at 2017-03-15 12:02 PM | Reply

"To hack the election means that the Russians hacked into the voting booths and changed the numbers."

No it does not. It means the Russians influenced our elections by hacking various systems and releasing damaging information at critical moments.

And there is no question that this was done.

In other words, it has been substantiated.

www.dni.gov

#62 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-03-15 12:05 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#62

So Russians manipulated our election by exposing how the DNC was manipulating the election?

And your problem is with the Russians?

#63 | Posted by aescal at 2017-03-15 12:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"I trust the IRS, if there was a problem then the IRS...

Lol. My how the worm has turned!

#64 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-03-15 12:11 PM | Reply

- by hacking various systems

Podesta shouldn't have clicked on that Viagra spam. or set his password as p@ssw0rd.

#65 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-03-15 12:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"So Russians manipulated our election by exposing how the DNC was manipulating the election?"

You obfuscating. So did Russians influence the election by hacking then? (Hint: the answer is yes or no)

And as long as they did not hack into and release RNC dirt you are ok with that because things went your way?

Got it.

#66 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-03-15 12:15 PM | Reply

No it does not. It means the Russians influenced our elections by hacking various systems and releasing damaging information at critical moments.
And there is no question that this was done.#62 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY AT 2017-03-15 12:05 PM | FLAG:

No, influencing the election for future considerations would be more like NBC holding onto the access Hollywood video all summer and then releasing it just before a debate.

#67 | Posted by fishpaw at 2017-03-15 12:16 PM | Reply

#67 I'm still waiting for the rape and sexual assault trials to start.

Wasn't there about a dozen all ready for trial about a week before the election?

#68 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-03-15 12:19 PM | Reply

So tell us sheeple. Did you read any of the report that substantiated the Russian hacking before you flagged it as funny?

And if you did what is so funny about it?

I don't find it funny at all.

#69 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-03-15 12:20 PM | Reply

what did we learn ?....plenty..

The White House released President Trump's tax return from 2005 on Tuesday, which showed that he paid $38 million on $150 million in income. This disproves the premise of a major New York Times story in the lead-up to the November election.

The Oct. 1 Times story was headlined: "Donald Trump Tax Records Show He Could Have Avoided Taxes for Nearly Two Decades, The Times Found." The New York Times reporters wrote: "Donald J. Trump declared a $916 million loss on his 1995 income tax returns, a tax deduction so substantial it could have allowed him to legally avoid paying any federal income taxes for up to 18 years, records obtained by The New York Times show."

Read more: dailycaller.com

LIKE the wire tap FRONT PAGE article on Jan 20...watch for this to DISAPPEAR....

#70 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2017-03-15 12:21 PM | Reply

#62- prove the Russians influenced the election.

Not speculate or opine.

Prove it.

#71 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2017-03-15 12:22 PM | Reply

Prove it.

#71 | POSTED BY PROLIX247

Read the report and then get back to me.

Tell me what you think. If you can think without being manipulated like a puppet on Putin's strings.

#72 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-03-15 12:25 PM | Reply

"I haven't seen anything that has been even remotely substantiated"

A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest.

Let's start here. First of all do you agree that the Russians tried to hack our election?

#54 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-03-15 11:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

LOL. This is so pathetic.

"You're wrong and I'll prove it by talking down to you while not providing proof."

Who do you think is going to fall for that?

Here's how a logical conversation works: If Person A is making accustions and Person B says "those are unsubstiated claims" then Person A can either provide substantiating evidence or concede that Person B is correct. You can't continue to bluff and bluster after the bluff was called. Put up or shut up.

#73 | Posted by Sully at 2017-03-15 12:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

The fact that you cannot accept that Russia influenced our election by hacking and propaganda speaks volumes. It has been proved beyond a shadow of doubt.

There is no point in going any further with this discussion if you cannot handle the truth.

You are being manipulated and you seem to enjoy it.

#74 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-03-15 12:28 PM | Reply

They tried to hack into the RNC per the FBI. But Im assuming the RNC had IT people who know better than to wipe a server with a rag or defend against hacks by unplugging the server or tell thier campaign chief that www.changeyourgooglepassword.superl33trussianhaxxors.bit.ly is a legitinate google site....

#75 | Posted by aescal at 2017-03-15 12:29 PM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 1

"You're wrong and I'll prove it by talking down to you while not providing proof."

I proved the report. The report proved it conclusively.

You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it think.

#76 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-03-15 12:29 PM | Reply

Provided.

#77 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-03-15 12:30 PM | Reply

"I trust the IRS, if there was a problem then the IRS...
Lol. My how the worm has turned!

#64 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY AT 2017-03-15 12:11 PM | REPLY | FLAG

Not a fan of the IRS but when it comes to getting their money they are out right savages and if Trump was a suspect than they would go all out and the left would have made sure they did.

#78 | Posted by fishpaw at 2017-03-15 12:31 PM | Reply

"Person A can either provide substantiating evidence or concede that Person B is correct. You can't continue to bluff and bluster after the bluff was called. Put up or shut up."

It is no bluff. Did you not see the link?

I provided substantiating evidence. Either read it and respond to it or shut up.

#79 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-03-15 12:34 PM | Reply

I watched that stupid show out of curiosity. What a waste of time for someone up to speed on the topic. I already knew about most of what she discussed prior to the "release" of the least interesting part of the tax returns on her show. Where are all the schedules? This was just another Trump stunt that she played into.

The points she made are valid though. What I don't understand is why nobody the right is saying the same thing. Trump, Ross and Rybolovlev - Now those are someseriously interesting and noteworthy events. Coincidences happen but... Trump buys a property he for 41 million then sells it for 95 million 3 years later while the value of surrounding properties was sinking like a stone. And more noteworthy was Dmitry Rybolovlev bought it. Follow the money. The Trump loan was with Deutsche Bank. (Which was under investigation by Preet Bharara for Russian Money laundering.) Also throw in Commerce Secretary Wilbur L. Ross and the Bank of Cyprus ties to Trump and Dmitry Rybolovlev. I mean Trump, Ross and Rybolovlev keep coming up in connection to Deutsche Bank and the Bank of Cyprus along with accusations of Russian money laundering, being in the same place at the same time while Trump was campaigning, etc. The room is full of smoke and Trump doesn't want to release the details.

#80 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2017-03-15 12:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I see the left has to deflect back to the Ruskies now that Maddow made an ass of herself.

#81 | Posted by wisgod at 2017-03-15 12:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"I haven't seen anything that has been even remotely substantiated" - Jeff
-----
A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest.
Let's start here. First of all do you agree that the Russians tried to hack our election?
#54 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-03-15 11:44 AM

Did you even read the post I was responding to?

Here:

If he's doing favors for russia in exchange for their help in the election, then he's a traitor. And so far every sign points to that being the case.

#52 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY


I've seen NOTHING to substantiate any claims that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians.

Further, taking steps to amp up domestic production of oil and natural gas as well as beefing up military spending and rushing to help S. Korea install a missile shield are all acts contrary to Russia's interests.

#82 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-03-15 12:43 PM | Reply

I proved the report. The report proved it conclusively.
#76 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY

from page 7:

"We further assess
Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We
have high confidence
in these judgments"

"high confidence"

In the next bullet point ; NSA has "moderate confidence"

and a subsequent bullet now swells with "increases our confidence"

But I'm having trouble finding anything in the report that states "proved it conclusively".

#83 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-03-15 12:43 PM | Reply

The whole link focuses on RT save a mention here or there of WL and DCleaks.

RTs coverage of OWS was an atempt to influence our election and help Trump?

Is that organic soybased FairTrade crack people smoke to believe that?

#84 | Posted by aescal at 2017-03-15 12:44 PM | Reply

I am glad you actually read the report sheeple. Now I have a "high confidence" that you exist and are not actually a bot.

But it is not proved %100.

Because nothing is.

#85 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-03-15 12:48 PM | Reply

I'm sure this has been point out by others but... does anyone honestly doubt but that it Trump himself who leaked or authorized the leak? Get real. He has a long history of leaking info when he feels it may benefit him. In this case, drawing attention away from his Trumpcare fiasco, the Wire Taps and so forth. Now he gets to pretend to be outraged, instead of everyone else being outraged at him.

Also, I don't believe for one moment that it is coincidence it was the 2005 tax return. Obviously he chose one where a significant amount of taxes were paid. It might be the only year that ever happened. A real "leak" would be a Trump tax return from the past few years. But don't hold your breath. Wake up everyone! Trump is blowing smoke as a diversion. And his shills are playing their roles accordingly.

#86 | Posted by moder8 at 2017-03-15 12:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Is that organic soybased FairTrade crack people smoke to believe that?

We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.

The fact that you can ignore this or make light of it is disgusting.

#87 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-03-15 12:52 PM | Reply

And his shills are playing their roles accordingly. #86 | POSTED BY MODER8

Rachel Maddow being one of those shills who played her role to perfection.

#88 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2017-03-15 12:53 PM | Reply

Also, I don't believe for one moment that it is coincidence it was the 2005 tax return. Obviously he chose one where a significant amount of taxes were paid. It might be the only year that ever happened. A real "leak" would be a Trump tax return from the past few years. But don't hold your breath. Wake up everyone! Trump is blowing smoke as a diversion. And his shills are playing their roles accordingly.

#86 | Posted by moder8

We all know that the IRS has never audited anyone, right Einstein? With the amount of money he dabbles with, he just flew under the radar all the years you are busy "speculating" about.

#89 | Posted by wisgod at 2017-03-15 12:53 PM | Reply

86..

assumptions....based on what ?...articles in the NY TIMES ?

I've provided two cases ...wiretap article/ post 70... where they were proven to be lying or covering for dems.

how many more undiscovered ?

#90 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2017-03-15 12:53 PM | Reply

"but... does anyone honestly doubt but that it Trump himself who leaked or authorized the leak? Get real. He has a long history of leaking info when he feels it may benefit him."

Exactly this!

Notice that there is just enough info to make him look good but not enough info to really know anything about where his money comes from.

Wingdings apparently enjoy being manipulated by Putin's puppet.


#91 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-03-15 12:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

And its 20 pages of tripe about RT and the shows they produce.

Ahow me interview of the hacker arrested and his confession that Putin cooked him Pizza Rolls and brought him Mountain Dew while he hacked the DNC.

Thats not proof your link. Its speculation. Nothing more.

Russian Yellowcake.

And your falling for it...

#92 | Posted by aescal at 2017-03-15 12:58 PM | Reply

I proved the report. The report proved it conclusively.
You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it think.
#76 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY AT 2017-03-15 12:29 PM | FLAG:

Provided.
#77 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY

But it is not proved %100.
Because nothing is.
#85 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY

Now we're all straight. I agree there's lot's of suspicion and smoke. I suspect Team Trump DID have contact with Russian officials, but that it likely consisted of "we're willing to work with you" type talk. I seriously doubt there was any coordinated effort to "hack" the election.

News reports also indicate Team Clinton met with Russian officials. again, I really don't have any suspicions about it. - www.msn.com

#93 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-03-15 12:59 PM | Reply

I haven't seen anything that has been even remotely substantiated.

#53 | Posted by JeffJ

Then you're not listening to real news sources.

How do you explain the fact that the ONLY interest trump took in determining the republican platform was to make repubs allow putin to have the ukraine? Then trump denied he made that change and blamed it on others in his circle. They all denied it too. The RNC says trump did it himself.

I'd love to hear your explanation.

#94 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-03-15 01:00 PM | Reply

Poor desperate right-wing scum. The Donald must be defended at all costs.

#95 | Posted by moder8 at 2017-03-15 01:00 PM | Reply

How do you explain the selection of tillerson, putin's favorite american oil exec, as the head of our foreign policy, when trump had never even met him?

The sanctions on russia over ukraine have tied up hundreds of billions of dollars for exxon in russia. Lifting those sanctions would be great for both exxon and russia. And then trump JUST HAPPENS to select exxon's CEO, a man he'd never met, to be our new sec of state?

#96 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-03-15 01:04 PM | Reply

I provided substantiating evidence. Either read it and respond to it or shut up.

#79 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-03-15 12:34 PM | Reply

My response is that you are lying when you claim to have provide evidence that Trump is "doing favors for Russia", which is what Jeff J was talking about.

Every time you repeat this claim, you are still lying.

Even if you could prove conclusively that Russia hacked and released DNC emails because Putin preferred Trump over Hillary, that still doesn't prove that Trump was involved. That I just had to tell you this should be shameful to you, but you seem to be shameless.

And for the record, I do believe that Putin preferred Trump to Hillary. It could be because Hillary was very hawkish towards Russia and interfered with the Ukraine while Trump seems to admire how "strong" Putin is. Or it could be something more nefarious. If there is something more nefarious going on, there is zero actual evidence of it publicly available at this time.

#97 | Posted by Sully at 2017-03-15 01:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

I'd love to hear your explanation.

#94 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

My explanation is that you can take just about anything he's said or done, dig deep enough and find some tenuous tie to Russia, or China, or India, or...

You are dealing in innuendo.

#98 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-03-15 01:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

How do you explain the selection of tillerson, putin's favorite american oil exec, as the head of our foreign policy, when trump had never even met him?

He interviewed a number of people for the position and Tillerson impressed him most.

The sanctions on russia over ukraine have tied up hundreds of billions of dollars for exxon in russia. Lifting those sanctions would be great for both exxon and russia. And then trump JUST HAPPENS to select exxon's CEO, a man he'd never met, to be our new sec of state?

#96 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

Have said sanctions been lifted?

#99 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-03-15 01:08 PM | Reply

Poor desperate right-wing scum. The Donald must be defended at all costs.

#95 | Posted by moder8 at 2017-03-15 01:0

I was just reading and thinking how well this thread was going..

then this shows up....

#100 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2017-03-15 01:08 PM | Reply

It means the Russians influenced our elections by hacking various systems and releasing damaging information at critical moments.

So THAT'S where the mimsy grabbing crap came from!

#101 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2017-03-15 01:09 PM | Reply

If there is something more nefarious going on, there is zero actual evidence of it publicly available at this time.
#97 | POSTED BY SULLY

Exactly.

#102 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-03-15 01:10 PM | Reply

My explanation is that you can take just about anything he's said or done, dig deep enough and find some tenuous tie to Russia, or China, or India, or...

You are dealing in innuendo.

#98 | Posted by JeffJ

Again with your "nothing to see here" crap.

If this were hillary clinton you'd be screaming for investigation and impeachment.

#103 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-03-15 01:17 PM | Reply

If there is something more nefarious going on, there is zero actual evidence of it publicly available at this time.
#97 | POSTED BY SULLY

Exactly.

#102 | Posted by JeffJ

And if repubs have their way, it will stay that way.

Wonder why they're not supporting an independent commission to look into it. Don't you?

Oh let me guess... nothing to see here. Again. and again. and again. and again.

#104 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-03-15 01:19 PM | Reply

The onus is on you as you are the one making the claim.

#105 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-03-15 01:20 PM | Reply

But don't hold your breath. Wake up everyone! Trump is blowing smoke as a diversion. And his shills are playing their roles accordingly.

#86 | POSTED BY MODER8 AT 2017-03-15 12:49 PM | FLAG: | NEWSWORTHY 1

HaHaHa, that's what Madcow went to after she realized her whole scoop was a piece of crap and her shills like Moder8 fell right in line which is what this post conclusively proves. Do you chant "lock them up" to your clients? It would be the same as if you were defending them.

#106 | Posted by fishpaw at 2017-03-15 01:25 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Wonder why they're not supporting an independent commission to look into it. Don't you?

Look into what, specifically?

#107 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-03-15 01:25 PM | Reply

- Do you chant "lock them up" to your clients?

That's chanted to the judge. The clients hear chants of, "pay my fee".

#108 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-03-15 01:27 PM | Reply

#80, Interesting theory, but help me with this. Didn't Trump win by less than a combined 100,000 votes over three states? Nobody thought this guy would win – I still can't believe it. Why would someone gamble 54+ million (the prices were falling) on a Bozo with little chance? If Trump loses, he's out of politics forever. It's like drawing to an inside straight.

And I absolutely agree that he leaked this year because it was probably one of his only returns that had him paying a % that wasn't embarrassing. Very surprised that Maddow bit that hook.

#109 | Posted by JimDuncan at 2017-03-15 01:34 PM | Reply

We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.
The fact that you can ignore this or make light of it is disgusting.

#87 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY AT 2017-03-15 12:52 PM | FLAG:

The report also said Russia targeted both parties. Bottom line here Donny is the sourcing, much of it comes from Russian News and unnamed sources and if their news is anything like ours Who TF would trust them as a source?

#110 | Posted by fishpaw at 2017-03-15 01:36 PM | Reply

Oh let me guess... nothing to see here. Again. and again. and again. and again.

#104 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-03-15 01:19 PM | Reply

Saying "this hasn't been substiated" in reference to something that hasn't been substiated in a statement of fact.

You're railing against the truth.

I hope Trump is forced to step down on something ethics related. What I don't want is for him to be forced to step down because the establishment keeps throwing crap against the wall until something sticks. Removing the winner of the presidential election because the moneyed interests who run our media don't like him would be even worse than having Trump finish his term. .

#111 | Posted by Sully at 2017-03-15 01:38 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Look into what, specifically?

#107 | Posted by JeffJ

Hang on. Are you claiming to be completely unaware of all the suspicious connections between trump's team and putin?

#112 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-03-15 01:39 PM | Reply

If this were hillary clinton you'd be screaming for investigation and impeachment.

#103 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2017-03-15 01:17 PM | FLAG:

No, we would do what we did during the Obama administration, work on better candidates, platforms and how to win the next election, not cry like a spoiled school girl who dropped her lollipop.

#113 | Posted by fishpaw at 2017-03-15 01:39 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Are you claiming to be completely unaware of all the suspicious connections between trump's team and putin?

#112 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

I know that much of it is manufactured garbage.

I know that in the course of investigating the Russian hacking of DNC emails no ties to Team Trump have been cited.

I know that you are allowing yourself to get whipped into a frenzy over some pretty trivial things.

Now, none of this is to say that something nefarious won't develop as this administration gets its feet wet. Having said that, you are shooting your wad WAY too soon if you want investigations over what is publicly known at this point.

#114 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-03-15 01:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I think about a month ago there was a report that there are 3 FBI investigations going on regarding Trump & Co and the Russians. If that's true, then we don't know what ties team Trump has/had with the Russians, and we won't know until the investigations are finished. I don't think anyone should get ahead of their skis in either direction: "there is something nefarious there" or "it's all garbage."

#115 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-03-15 01:56 PM | Reply

Gal... fun starts today....

Trump in Graham's cross hairs as Russia probe kicks off
The South Carolina senator vows 'to find out all things Russia.'

www.politico.com

#116 | Posted by Corky at 2017-03-15 01:58 PM | Reply

#107 | Posted by JeffJ

Hang on. Are you claiming to be completely unaware of all the suspicious connections between trump's team and putin?

#112 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

They were probably unaware of the DNI report until I linked it for them.

#117 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-03-15 02:04 PM | Reply

U.S. inquiries into Russian election hacking include three FBI probes

The FBI's Pittsburgh field office, which runs many cyber security investigations, is trying to identify the people behind breaches of the Democratic National Committee's computer systems, the officials said. Those breaches, in 2015 and the first half of 2016, exposed the internal communications of party officials as the Democratic nominating convention got underway and helped undermine support for Hillary Clinton.

Meanwhile the bureau's San Francisco office is trying to identify the people who called themselves "Guccifer 2" and posted emails stolen from Clinton campaign manager John Podesta's account, the sources said. Those emails contained details about fundraising by the Clinton Foundation and other topics.

Beyond the two FBI field offices, FBI counterintelligence agents based in Washington are pursuing leads from informants and foreign communications intercepts, two of the people said.

This counterintelligence inquiry includes but is not limited to examination of financial transactions by Russian individuals and companies who are believed to have links to Trump associates. The transactions under scrutiny involve investments by Russians in overseas entities that appear to have been undertaken through middlemen and front companies, two people briefed on the probe said.

www.reuters.com

#118 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-03-15 02:05 PM | Reply

"The report also said Russia targeted both parties. Bottom line here Donny is the sourcing, much of it comes from Russian News and unnamed sources and if their news is anything like ours Who TF would trust them as a source?"

The report clearly shows that Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.

Interesting how you can gloss right over this.

#119 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-03-15 02:14 PM | Reply

We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.
Interesting how you can gloss right over this.

#119 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY

Nobody is glossing over it. The US also has "clear preference" for candidates in every single foreign election that takes place.

That means nothing. It simply means the US prefers a friendly gov't that's friendly to US interests.

Why would it be a surprise that Russia, or any other country that's NOT the US, doesn't have the same desires?

#120 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-03-15 02:18 PM | Reply

If you want to see how a gov't undermines elections abroad, you can find that info.

But will you be enraged over it? no, you won't. Because it's us doing it.

#121 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-03-15 02:19 PM | Reply

She is despised in this country. Is it any wonder Russians hate her too?

Seriously, the "reset" button was total bush league. Embarrassing as hell.
The best part is it was a total and utter failure.

#122 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2017-03-15 02:21 PM | Reply

I know that you are allowing yourself to get whipped into a frenzy over some pretty trivial things.

Now, none of this is to say that something nefarious won't develop as this administration gets its feet wet. Having said that, you are shooting your wad WAY too soon if you want investigations over what is publicly known at this point.

#114 | Posted by JeffJ

The only way you could NOT be in a frenzy over trump's russian connections are if you were willfully ignorant about them.

Especially if you were a person who considered bengazi a scandal. This is an order of magnitude worse. Bengazi was incompetence. This is treason and potential foreign control of the president.

#123 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-03-15 02:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#86

Now before anyone gets all freaked out by this post, let me say that I agree that the Russians wanted Trump elected over Hillary.

That being said, it's just as fair to modify this statement to say this:

We assess Reince Priebus ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Priebus' goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Priebus and the GOP developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.

From a proof standpoint, just because there is a commonality of interest doesn't mean that there is a conspiracy.

#124 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2017-03-15 02:45 PM | Reply

From a proof standpoint, just because there is a commonality of interest doesn't mean that there is a conspiracy.

#124 | POSTED BY LEFTCOASTLAWYER

Right. If you take that evidence alone. As though it existed in a vacuum. Now add in all the rest... contacts with Russian spies and ambassadors, money that the Russians have literally given Trump, changes in policies favorable to the Russians (and not America First) and you will be able to see the connections.

If you wanted to see.

"A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest."

#125 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-03-15 03:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"She is despised in this country. Is it any wonder Russians hate her too?"

Trump is also despised in this country. He is less popular than Hillary.

Why don't the Russians hate him?

Maybe that's what you should ask yourself.

#126 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-03-15 03:05 PM | Reply

and a subsequent bullet now swells with "increases our confidence"
But I'm having trouble finding anything in the report that states "proved it conclusively".

#83 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM

Which begs the necessity for further scrutiny, do you not agree?

Many people are simply asking to investigate if there's a fire because it has already been established formally and informally that there's a ---- ton of smoke. And folks like JEFFJ are demanding proof be brought forth of the fire prior to an investigation into whether there is a fire at all. Circumstantial evidence can justify an investigation for direct evidence.

Do you understand what is being asked? Nobody sensible is screaming for impeachment. Investigate the matter objectively. If there's no fire and only smoke, so be it. But ignoring the matter entirely is just as foolish as imposing impeachment proceedings without evidence of wrongdoing.

#127 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-03-15 03:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#97 | POSTED BY SULLY AT 2017-03-15 01:05 PM | FLAG: | NEWSWORTHY 3

It's more likely he's had it out for HRC because of the time she stated: "As a former KGB agent, [Putin] by definition does not have a soul." (Paraphrasing from memory because too lazy to google.)

#128 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-03-15 03:57 PM | Reply

Now add in all the rest... contacts with Russian spies and ambassadors, money that the Russians have literally given Trump, changes in policies favorable to the Russians (and not America First) and you will be able to see the connections.
If you wanted to see.
"A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest."

#125 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY AT 2017-03-15 03:01 PM | FLAG: | NEWSWORTHY 1

Let me guess, you heard that from a highly respected yet anonymous source.

#129 | Posted by fishpaw at 2017-03-15 03:58 PM | Reply

"If there is something more nefarious going on, there is zero actual evidence of it publicly available at this time."

Exactly.
#102 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Indeed. I hope both you and SULLY are also interested in further scrutiny of the situation as a whole.

#130 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-03-15 03:59 PM | Reply

Indeed. I hope both you and SULLY are also interested in further scrutiny of the situation as a whole.

#130 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11

Of course.

#131 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-03-15 04:00 PM | Reply

No, we would do what we did during the Obama administration, work on better candidates, platforms and how to win the next election, not cry like a spoiled school girl who dropped her lollipop.
#113 | POSTED BY FISHPAW

HAHAHA! Is THAT what you recall of 2009?

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

#132 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-03-15 04:02 PM | Reply

It simply means the US prefers a friendly gov't that's friendly to US interests.
Why would it be a surprise that Russia, or any other country that's NOT the US, doesn't have the same desires?

#120 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM

That's not surprising. What's surprising is their ability to (potentially) effectively influence the outcome of the POTUS election. Desire/interest is one thing; action is another. U.S. has been guilty numerous times of influencing other countries' elections and have been denounced for doing so by many American citizens, including the one typing out this post. With that said, this fact should not mitigate the outrage YOU feel for Russia conducting similar nefarious activities against the U.S.

If you're suggesting Russia's actions are justifiable because of previous American actions, I truly pitty you and your neighbors. And BTW, if you're even "further left than Chompsky," that swings you all the way to the other side of the spectrum (that of which is not linear but circular in nature).

#133 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-03-15 04:09 PM | Reply

she sure went to a lot of trouble for her tax concern.......and here she could have just looked around the studio..

A Heat Street review of public records show that a total of six current, prominent MSNBC pundits have recently settled federal or state tax liens, while one still has tax problems. Moreover, at least two other hosts who recently left the network have also had massive tax liens filed against them.

MSNBC declined to comment, and none of the current or former tax debtors responded to requests for interviews sent through an MSNBC spokesperson.

The Rev. Al Sharpton -- MSNBC's Sunday morning host -- easily comes in first place when it comes to "issues" with the taxman. He and his various entities -- including several dissolved by New York for failure to pay taxes -- currently owe about $1.5 million in state and federal taxes, interest and penalties, according to public records.

heatst.com

#134 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2017-03-15 04:10 PM | Reply

#127 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11

The Russian hacking of Podesta's and DNC email accounts absolutely should be (and are being) investigated.

Let the chips fall where they may.

The leaks coming from this investigation are absolutely inexcusable though.

#135 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-03-15 04:13 PM | Reply

"What's surprising is their ability to (potentially) effectively influence the outcome of the POTUS election."

what's surprising about it?

the way they went about it? or that they attempted it at all?

#136 | Posted by eberly at 2017-03-15 04:30 PM | Reply

U.S. has been guilty numerous times of influencing other countries' elections and have been denounced for doing so by many American citizens, including the one typing out this post. With that said, this fact should not mitigate the outrage YOU feel for Russia conducting similar nefarious activities against the U.S. #133 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11 AT 2017-03-15 04:09 PM | FLAG:

Funny you must have denounced it to a very select group of people because I remember hearing crickets on the left regarding Obama and Israel and Brexit

#137 | Posted by fishpaw at 2017-03-15 04:40 PM | Reply

History, tradition, nostalgia, and 'just because' aren't good enough.

They were good enough before the chump currently occupying the office. Just because you've lowered your standards doesn't mean the rest of us should.

#138 | Posted by rcade at 2017-03-15 05:05 PM | Reply

Donald isn't a traitor, Zed.

We won't know that until we see his full tax returns.

He talks like a traitor every time the subject of Russia comes up.

#139 | Posted by rcade at 2017-03-15 05:09 PM | Reply


There will probably be more revelations to come regarding this now that Trump has opened the door a crack.

The Donald had a wonderful way of sticking his foot into his own mouth.

Donald Trump's 2005 IRS Filing Shows He May Have Understated His Salary by Millions

Donald Trump's newly leaked tax documents again showed a huge gap between what the president appears to actually earn, what he claims to earn, and what he reports to the IRS.

In fact, the difference between the salary he reported to the tax authorities for 2005 (about $1 million) and what he earned that year appears to be as large as $3.5 million, and could be a good deal more.

fortune.com

#140 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-03-15 05:37 PM | Reply

#137 | POSTED BY FISHPAW

I'm not part of the Left. Your mistake.

#141 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-03-15 06:35 PM | Reply

#136 | POSTED BY EBERLY

I had zero confidence in Russian hackers' ability.

#142 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-03-15 06:38 PM | Reply

"I trust the IRS.
#61 | POSTED BY FISHPAW"

Lol

#143 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2017-03-15 06:41 PM | Reply

#125

Donner, I was only pointing out that your post was not the absolute proof that you claimed it to be.

After all, "a man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest."

#144 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2017-03-15 06:42 PM | Reply

Seeing that Bernie only paid 13% and he was calling for people to pay their fair share he still has time to cut a check. Since he bought his new 600k lake house with cash, after he endorsed Clinton, he should be able to get a low interest home equity loan to cover it.

#145 | Posted by fishpaw at 2017-03-15 07:17 PM | Reply

"I know that in the course of investigating the Russian hacking of DNC emails no ties to Team Trump have been cited."

Roger Stone has admitted to having back channel links to Assange and WikiLeaks. After denying it, he now admits to having had contact with Guccifer 2.0:

CBS Evening News: Trump Ally Roger Stone Contacted Russian Hacker "At Least 16 Times During The 2016 Campaign"

Roger Stone: "That's Called Networking"

www.mediamatters.org

It may prove to be nothing but along with Manafort, Page and Flynn's connections with Russians, it bears checking out.

#147 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-03-15 09:51 PM | Reply

#146

Donald expects to get away with things. He's arrogant, you never noticed?

Let's just have his damned finances, so we can judge his loyalty for ourselves.

#148 | Posted by Zed at 2017-03-15 09:51 PM | Reply

#146 | POSTED BY WHITEDEVIL AT

I have a feeling that you're probably not real sure exactly what you did yesterday. I'd imagine that you would have to think about what you had for lunch.

You seem to know for sure how tens of hundreds of thousands of people spent their day though, what they said, what they think, etc.

A person with some sense would put that skill to use and make millions or use it to improve the world some how, you're here making yourself look like an idiot instead.

#149 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-03-15 09:52 PM | Reply

#146

Donald likes to rub people's noses in his own piss. He's done one bad thing after the other his entire life and presidency and then dared anyone to come at him.

Donald Trump is crazy. Like the Zodiac, he can't help teasing people with his crimes. Makes him feel superior.

#150 | Posted by Zed at 2017-03-15 10:00 PM | Reply

#146 | POSTED BY WHITEDEVIL AT

BTW, brainiac, I just heard her say that she tweeted about it at around 7PM EST. Her show comes on at 9PM EST.

Do you live on a planet where the days are really short or are you just really bad with numbers?

Right wing idiots don't seem to think that math and science are important, they can keep you from looking foolish so you may wanna brush up on one or both of them.

#151 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-03-15 10:01 PM | Reply

Yes. Because It's the right who is looking so foolish lately.

#152 | Posted by WhiteDevil at 2017-03-15 11:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Yes. Because It's the right who is looking so foolish lately.

#152 | POSTED BY WHITEDEVIL AT

This really has nothing to do with "the right." This is really more about you, exclusively.

Either:

1. You can't count

2. You can count but aren't capable of telling the truth

3. You can't count and aren't capable of telling the truth

So which is it? Which one of the 3 is the reason you want everyone to toss your stupid ***?

#153 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-03-16 12:11 AM | Reply

All 3. I really just want to be smart, like you. Can you help me get smarter?

Oh, and Rachel Maddow. She's a genius too. I wanna be like that.

#154 | Posted by WhiteDevil at 2017-03-16 04:22 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Can you help me get smarter?

#154 | POSTED BY WHITEDEVIL AT

Nope.

That window closed a long time ago.

#155 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-03-16 09:07 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Oh, and Rachel Maddow. She's a genius too. I wanna be like that.

#154 | POSTED BY WHITEDEVIL AT

BTW, Dr. Rachel Maddow would have been someone for you to aspire to be like when you had the opportunity.

#156 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-03-16 09:09 AM | Reply

Indeed. I hope both you and SULLY are also interested in further scrutiny of the situation as a whole.

#130 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-03-15 03:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

Of course they should look at it. In the meantime, the exagerated rhetoric supported by nothing but supposition is counter productive. The Boy Who Cried Wolf is a great teaching tool for a reason.

I also think an investigation should also be launched into his non-Russian businessses to see if he illegally profiteered from his campaign and if he is illegally profiteering as president now. I don't know the laws very well but to me it seems very likely that he's done both and that it would be easier to prove than the Russian conspiracy.

#157 | Posted by Sully at 2017-03-16 09:30 AM | Reply

BTW, Dr. Rachel Maddow would have been someone for you to aspire to be like when you had the opportunity.

#156 | POSTED BY MRSILENCEDOGOOD AT 2017-03-16 09:09 AM | FLAG:

So I could get more chicks that don't shave their arm pits?

#158 | Posted by fishpaw at 2017-03-16 12:09 PM | Reply

"It's the right who is looking so foolish lately.
#152 | POSTED BY WHITEDEVIL"

Wow. Even Whitedevil has moments of lucidity.

#159 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2017-03-16 12:41 PM | Reply

As others have said, it would not surprise me if Trump or a close associate leaked these pages on purpose. Furthermore, I would not be surprised if they were completely fabricated, and not representative of what he actually filed that year.

#160 | Posted by woe_is_W at 2017-03-16 04:18 PM | Reply

I still see no proof of the assertions being offered here. I also see no new information offered.

What is going to happen when nothing comes of this? Is the DNC going to be accused of treason?

Is the 4th Estate going to held accountable for creating and spreading a false narrative?

Or are Democrats going to hang on to their manipulated emotions and wander in the wilderness?

I don't believe the Democrats are going to get the vindication they seek.

#161 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2017-03-16 09:37 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

-->
Drudge Retort