Did Rachel Maddow overhype the Trump tax scoop and should she be prosecuted for

1. 83

   RJ Schwartzposted 7 years ago

   Did Rachel Maddow overhype the Trump tax scoop and should she be prosecuted for an illegal act?
   
   MSNBC employee, Rachel Maddow, made her so-called scoop of President Trump's 2005 taxes seem like a big deal, when in fact all that it showed was he paid taxes....much more than anyone might have expected.  She dragged out the actual release for so long that the WH had time to scoop her scoop with a pre-emptive news release, literally bursting her balloon.  She went through her usual long list of conspiracy theories, but in the end, she had nothing harmful to report.  She merely played a song and dance which her audience seemed to think would reveal a smoking gun, all in the name of ratings.
   
   

   replyreport
2. 0

   RTalloniposted 7 years ago

   The behaviors of news media now are as immoral as their coverups for the likes of Clintons and others before and after them.  The legalities could take huge amounts of money, time, and energy.  Ignoring what they say (as well as brands that support them) and moving forward in life might be the best justice the public could give them.

   replyreport
   1. 51

      bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      How do you move fwd with a big weight on you? The media is the opposition party today, and they were the Obama backers for the last 8 years.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      RTalloniposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      The media opposition a battle for the president, but he seems to be moving forward with his plans.  With the support of the majority of Americans becoming clearer in spite of the incessant attacks he's continuing forward.

      replyreport
   3. 83

      RJ Schwartzposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      The more the media goes on their wild goose chases, the more most Americans see them for who they really are.  When the advertisers realize no one in watching anymore, they will simply fade away

      replyreport
   4. 0

      promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      RTalloni, Brad and Ralph: I can promise you that Vladimir Putin loves your comments. His propaganda campaign to destroy western media is finding followers.

      replyreport
   5. 0

      RTalloniposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      RS:  Seems like all sides go on wild goose chases at times, but it's the smug hypocrisy of the news elite that has caused people to dismiss what they say. People might check out what they're up to but most have stopped caring about what they say.

      replyreport
   6. 51

      bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Scott, Putin? How come there isn't a single shred of evidence? It has been one hail Mary after another from HRC and Obama since Trump Won the presidency. dems and liberals lost because hate Trump is not a platform, it is just desperation after losing

      replyreport
   7. 81

      lovemychrisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      the netherlands counted their ballots by hand, because they were worried about dirty tricks from putin.
      and lo and behold....their "trump" candidate lost handily. if you dont think wilileaks hurt clinton, thats amazing. wikiservers in russia. ussa

      replyreport
   8. 0

      RTalloniposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      SB: Plans to subtly/overtly control news outlets are old news. A wider variety of means for everyone (not just a select few) to report and examine facts from more perspectives makes the unfolding times more interesting to watch.

      replyreport
   9. 51

      bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Still no evidence

      replyreport
   10. 81

       lovemychrisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       jd gordon said trump asked him to soften the gop platform on ukraine...on russias behalf.we know sessions and page met w kislyak and lied about it,and jared and ivanka snuck him in trump tower thru the back door.now trump wants troops on ground,syria

       replyreport
   11. 51

       bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       yd, I will no longer be comment on your comments until you stop with all of these wild non factual accusations. What you believe is not fact or evidence. Bye Bye

       replyreport
   12. 81

       lovemychrisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       more coming out on manafort. and the infuriating thing is all this could have been known before the election. msm was enamored of trump, and spent 600 days straight on emails. a non-issue, given the amount of high level gvt men that use one.selected

       replyreport
3. 76

   lifelovemysteryposted 7 years ago

   If Trump hadn't stolen the spotlight and beat her to the punch by announcing the return before she did, there may have been legal repercussions. However, he did 'trump' her story, so I think there should at least be an inquiry.
   
   All I can say is, "Well played Sir. Well played."

   replyreport
   1. 51

      bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      In any case, there was no Trump story. In 2005 he wasn't running for public office, he was a private citizen. He didn't run in 2008, or 2012. BTW, how did the Bernie Sanders competition play into the election. His supporters didn't vote for HRC

      replyreport
   2. 81

      lovemychrisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      he also married melania in that year. and part of becoming citizen is showing past tax returns.she became citizen in 2006.someone speculated that since 2005 was the year he had to file a joint tax return w melania,its only year he followed the rules!

      replyreport
   3. 51

      bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      YD, You don't seem to understand that businessmen including Trump do follow the rules. It is called the Internal Revenue Code.

      replyreport
   4. 81

      lovemychrisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      so whats he hiding?

      replyreport
   5. 51

      bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      yd - What could he be hiding? Maybe the last scrap of personal privacy.
      The income tax is a discriminatory method of raising revenue. Several constitutional freedom are broken by it, as well as equal protection, and due process. A national sales tax!

      replyreport
   6. 81

      lovemychrisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      awww, poor baby! he wants to be prez, but wont supply info so we can trust him? is he somehow better than all the other prez's? and get real. hes hiding something, just like sanders was. clinton issued 30yrs worth, and those men called her corrupt.

      replyreport
   7. 51

      bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      yd, as you continue to deflect, bye

      replyreport
   8. 81

      lovemychrisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      he said hed release them if he won. pay up, welcher!!!
      deflector-in-chief....."dont blame me, blame fox. cause  i was airquoting, so i get to deny my own words"....
      bye yourself.

      replyreport
   9. 51

      bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      YD, it makes a difference whether he releases them, or someone else leaks them. Please stop with the name calling, it doesn't make your case. It just makes you look like a sore loser. Do u think it is patriotic to want the pres to fail with the US?

      replyreport
   10. 81

       lovemychrisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       ask mitch mcconnell.
       been there, done that

       replyreport
4. 51

   bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years ago

   
   
   Ralph
   What I don't understand is why there isn't a congressional and an FBI investigation on the this leaked document.
   While the press can hide behind not giving their source up, how does that protect the document itself.
   This document could not have been legally obtained, and even though NBC said it was mailed to one of their investigative reporters, the document should still be deemed "Evidence" of a crime.
   
   The FBI can then use forensic investigation and other investigative tools to try an trace the source of the document.
   It is a federal crime for anyone in the IRS to give out copies of Income Tax returns, or even mention the information contained in them.
   I would even consider pursuing NBC for receiving stolen information. Then it would be up to NBC to prove it wasn't stolen. Or maybe even the true source of the document. NBC could have procured this document through any other means than their purported mail drop. They could have received it nefariously, and just posted it themselves in the mail. This would be food for the investigation.
   
   Everyone in the country that filed a Tax Return should take this personally, and not just that it happened to president Trump. Remember, this tax return is from 2005, and he was not a public official then.
   
   This is one of a 1000 reasons why we should get rid of Income Tax. It violates some of our basic protected rights, including the 4th, 5th, equal protection, and due process. The reason we don't have the use of these rights when the federal government collects a simple debt for the purposes of revenue is that the Supreme Court for the last 100 years has rejected every argument on these rights.
   
   When this country was formed, we got rid of debtors prisons, only to have a new form of prison called the 16th Amendment. While the Amendment is by definition constitutional, the implementation and the application of this amendment can be unconstitutional.
   
   If all the federal government wants is revenue, then I submit going to a National Sales Tax which is similar to the existing State Sales Tax. This would severely reduce the need for the IRS and especially its criminal division. The govt would get its money immediately, no real paper work, no invasion of privacy. It would eliminate the Internal Rev Code and its 1000s of exceptions, deferments, deductions, and other loop holes.
   
   People and businesses could make better decisions on spending their money without worrying about TAX consequences. del if u wish

   replyreport
   1. 69

      Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Nobody, other than you, so far as I've seen, that Trump's partial tax return was stolen. What makes you think it was stolen rather than mailed to the journalist/reporter who appeared on Madow's show?
      .

      replyreport
   2. 51

      bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Ralph, What facts rule it out. I gave an example in my comment, and that is just one of the possible ways they could have received stolen property. Does MSNBC have a record of unbiased truth, NO. until an investigation shows otherwise, it is possible

      replyreport
   3. 81

      lovemychrisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      its also possoble trump did it himself. its also possible melania did it. also possible junior or eric did it. it did say client copy. i think ill go w that cause i feel like it.

      replyreport
5. 92

   lisavollrathposted 7 years ago

   My answer to the question is no, and no. She didn't do anything illegal, and the fact is, people want to see his tax returns. Maybe what she revealed wasn't particularly interesting, but she didn't break any laws to do it. This one is a wash, I'm afraid.
   
   But this: "She dragged out the actual release for so long that the WH had time to scoop her scoop with a pre-emptive news release..."? It's wrong.
   
   At 7:36PM ET last night, she tweeted this: "BREAKING: We've got Trump tax returns. Tonight, 9pm ET. MSNBC."
   
   At, 8:24PM ET she tweeted again: "What we've got is from 2005... the President's 1040 form... details to come tonight 9PM ET, MSNBC."
   
   That's all the "hype" she did, in the hour and a half before the show aired. The White House released their statement shortly after the second tweet went out.
   
   Two tweets in the hour and a half before the show doesn't qualify as too much hype, or dragging it out, in my book.

   replyreport
   1. 51

      bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Why do "people" want to see Trump's tax returns, is it like some "people" wanted to see Obama's Birth Certificate and College Records? Either both are important or neither are important!

      replyreport
   2. 92

      lisavollrathposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Obama showed his birth certificate, even though he didn't have to. Trump promised to release his returns, and now refuses to do so. What's he hiding? If Obama showed his birth certificate, shouldn't Trump show his returns?

      replyreport
   3. 51

      bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Why doesn't compliance with Article II of the US Constitution not require proof of citizenship. Tax returns are not required.
      And Obama took how many years after he became president to show a birth certificate.

      replyreport
   4. 77

      Charluposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Brad  It was part of his campaign which again just solidifies the lies he continues to release trying to make him a victim!  He has a mission, unfortunately the results of his actions, and orders should have been researched showing the devastation.

      replyreport
   5. 51

      bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Charlu, what lies? What evidence do you have for your accusations?

      replyreport
   6. 81

      lovemychrisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      geeesus...."ill release my tax returns if i win"
      did u not hear that????
      
      trump said it. he lied. simple.

      replyreport
   7. 51

      bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Charlu, he is accomplishing the goals that he stated in his campaign, and you want to focus on taxes. But libs get upset when anyone ?ed Obama's citizenship. Unlike tax returns, citizenship is Required by the US Constitution.

      replyreport
   8. 83

      RJ Schwartzposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I still would like to see obamas transcripts

      replyreport
   9. 81

      lovemychrisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      so you dont care that trump lied. got it. because usually when a politician promises something, other people are involved in making it happen (congress). this one is
      all on trump.

      replyreport
   10. 83

       RJ Schwartzposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       Amazing how your able to glean my thoughts from the comments about college transcripts of a failed president

       replyreport
   11. 81

       lovemychrisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       no,from all your comments.trump was right about his followers...he can do anything and they dont care. btw, chafetts being investigated by fbi. that email he got from comey was classified. he put it on twitter. uh ohhh. AND he used private server!!

       replyreport
6. 81

   lovemychrisposted 7 years ago

   well, as with everything, there is the other side of this story. told by ex gop rep joe scarborough. he says team trump cherry-picked one year that he paid taxes, and sent it in for trumps benefit. cause hillary released her returns back from 1971 til present. we want to see more than just 2 front pages from 2005. and scarborough also said he did it to distract from his russia and wire-tapping problems. trump learned a lot from vegas. bait and switch game.
   and maddow broke no laws. otherwise, assange would be charged with disseminating stolen information. and this wasnt stolen, it was sent through the mail. first amendment gives her right to speak on it. i mean, you dont accuse russia for stealing dnc info, do you? werent you happy that you read it? and you were celebrating vladimir putin!
   no, im proud of her. this is no conspiracy, its true investigative reporting on treasononous behavior  against the usa. and this putin character is no one to play with. he has no conscience when it comes to crossing him.
   and she is getting ratings FOR her reporting, not the other way around. her ratings went through the roof due to her stellar reports.
   i know there is a whole other scenario in trumpland. one where the cia actually hacked the dnc....and is blaming it on putin. oh, and in that world, obama WAS hacking trump in order to help hillary.
   you live there, i dont. i say kudos to rachel for being f'kn woke!

   replyreport
   1. 51

      bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Seriously, you will let Joe who gets paid by MSNBC make these factless scenarios, but you won't let president Trump say that pres Obama spied on him and his team? How can you say that Hillary won the election, and then say Russia helped Trump win?

      replyreport
   2. 81

      lovemychrisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      i used him because hes gop.obviously, dems dont believe anything out of trump. trump accused obama of committing a felony.dont think leaking a favorable tax return falls in the same catagory.i say these things due to factual information by the TONS

      replyreport
   3. 51

      bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      You provided NO factual information. Joe is no longer a GOP. He is a paid democrat. Leaking a Tax Return is a felony, and they are investigating Obama. If Joe was right then why didn't he tell Maddow to not publish the story?

      replyreport
   4. 81

      lovemychrisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      hes no democrat.and they are not investigating obama,theyre investigating trumps claims about obama.if leaking tax return is felony...trump in trouble.it said "client copy" on it.
      factual info:
      @funder
      @Khannoisseur
      @sarahkendzior
      @LouiseMensch

      replyreport
   5. 51

      bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      yd, @xxx anything are not facts. What investigation of Trump???

      replyreport
   6. 81

      lovemychrisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      if you went to those accounts  you would know 30 yrs worth of dirt on trump. his actions  are out there for all to see. he really has no business being prez. comey was investigating him for his russian ties. at same time the email crap going on.

      replyreport
   7. 51

      bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      yd. name 1.

      replyreport
   8. 81

      lovemychrisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      money laundering. was levied a 10 million dollar fine.

      replyreport
   9. 51

      bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      yd what money laundering?

      replyreport
   10. 81

       lovemychrisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       really brad? if u curious, all you have to do is search. and while youre at it, try "trump ties to the mob", and "trump ties to iranian national guard"...and then you can call it all hooey and go back to believing only him. he now denies tweets...smh

       replyreport
   11. 0

       savvydatingposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       Brad, by now you must realize that Leslie makes things up. If you want the truth, best not to engage with her, unless you're really, really bored.

       replyreport
   12. 81

       lovemychrisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       that is a personal attack, and not allowed on hubpages. i suggest you read the tos. im not taking your gop bullying anymore. from any of you. i have complete right to speak. i am hp member. im not insulting you. try and do the same.

       replyreport
   13. 0

       savvydatingposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       If you say so, but I looked up the things you mentioned and found NOTHING. It's not appropriate for you to make things up and then expect to be taken seriously. The fake news routine is not productive or useful in any way.

       replyreport
   14. 81

       lovemychrisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       you googled trump money laundering and found nothing?maybe you have a different google than me. same with mob ties and iranian national guard.someone's being untruthful, but its not me.

       replyreport
   15. 0

       savvydatingposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       That's right. Nothing. I have yet to find any substantiated facts to back up anything you have said regarding politics----ever.

       replyreport
   16. 81

       lovemychrisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       your loss. i stand firm on all of it. what i say to trump? nyet, nyet, nyet!

       replyreport
   17. 77

       Charluposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       Trump is being investigated which is why now they're changing the story from tapping his phone to possibly watching him from everything to through the tv (my personal favorite) to video taping  Again paying no attention to consequences of his actions

       replyreport
   18. 81

       lovemychrisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       yup. now of course, according to brain trust trump, the whole russia thing is fake news. why listen, sheeple...russia doesnt even exist! hillary made the country up because she lost. shes a loser! loser! and all the loser snowflakes can just shut up!

       replyreport
7. 96

   Readmikenowposted 7 years ago

   Rachel Maddow made herself a joke.  Any reasonable person can see what she tried to do and realize how badly she failed.  Embarrassing herself and looking like the pathetic political hack she is seems to be punishment enough for me.  She's becoming a comedian and doesn't realize it.

   replyreport
   1. 83

      RJ Schwartzposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      She really doesn't seem to know how to manage a "scoop" does she?  Just another example of the news reporter trying to be bigger than the story.

      replyreport
   2. 51

      bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Mike, do you consider liberals as reasonable people?

      replyreport
   3. 96

      Readmikenowposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      My wife's family is mostly liberal. They're highly educated and very irrational. If there is a sane, reasonable liberal, I've not yet met them. I consider this a myth akin to Big Foot or the Loch Ness Monster.

      replyreport
8. 0

   promisemposted 7 years ago

   Yes, she did overhype it. No, she can't be prosecuted because it wasn't an illegal act. She didn't steal the return.

   replyreport
   1. 51

      bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      How do you know that she didn't steal it. Maybe there should be yet another investigation for things without evidence or facts?

      replyreport
   2. 91

      MizBejabbersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Brad, then Congress would have to investigate Trump for all his ravings without evidence, such as the alleged wiretapping by the Obama administration. He's trying to back out of that one faster than a Louisiana crawdad.

      replyreport
   3. 0

      promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Brad, did you watch the show? A journalist admitted on air that he received the returns in the mail. It was not Maddow.

      replyreport
   4. 0

      savvydatingposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      It is illegal for her to have obtained it. No one is allowed to obtain tax returns, unless there are special extenuating circumstances. Period. That is the law and Maddow broke it..

      replyreport
   5. 0

      promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Yves, what law? The Supreme Court has said that journalists are free to publish truthful information on matters of public concern notwithstanding laws to the contrary as long as they did nothing illegal in obtaining the information.

      replyreport
   6. 51

      bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Scott
      How do you know? So far, it is a story.

      replyreport
   7. 0

      savvydatingposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Promisen....perhaps you are correct. I read the the law. It said nothing about journalists having special access.
      
      Did some other legal entity have access to the tax returns before Rachel Madoff?

      replyreport
   8. 0

      promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Yves, thanks for asking. It's not about special access for journalists. It's about the difference between a private citizen and public figure. If Maddow had published your returns, she would have broken the law. But not a public figure like Trump.

      replyreport
   9. 0

      savvydatingposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks, Scott. I'll take another look at the law.

      replyreport
   10. 51

       bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       The issue is how did she get it. And without an investigation there is no evidence to believe the mail story. It is important because, it is yet another leak against president Trump. Where are the leaks coming from should be hi priority investigation

       replyreport
   11. 83

       RJ Schwartzposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       Should Wikileaks be liable for anything they share since they didn't steal it Scott?

       replyreport
   12. 0

       promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       Yes, if it's classified information and breaks laws covering classified information. If it's not classified, then no.

       replyreport
   13. 83

       RJ Schwartzposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       Then you agree that having classified info should put a person behind bars? So should Huma be in jail ?  Hillary?  Obviously a lot of people have leaked over the years as well

       replyreport
   14. 0

       promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       I agree that anyone who breaks any law should face fine or jail, depending on the law. Do you?

       replyreport
9. 0

   savvydatingposted 7 years ago

   Yes, she should be prosecuted. She broke the law.
   
   See Confidentiality and Disclosure of Returns and Return Information.
   
   The gist is no person or officer "shall disclose any return or return information obtained by him in any manner in connection with his service as such an officer or an employee or otherwise or under the provisions of this section."
   
   https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6103

   replyreport
   1. 81

      lovemychrisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      hmmm. so what should be done with trump, who repeated stolen information the whole campaign?
      "wikileake, wikileaks. i love wikileaks"...
      
      russian intelligence. ooops

      replyreport
   2. 0

      promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Yves, the U.S. Supreme Court doesn't agree with you. Courts distinguish between a private citizen and a public figure such as POTUS.

      replyreport
   3. 0

      savvydatingposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Scott...can you site that? I look at Supreme Court rulings. Where did you find the ruling you speak of---in which the Supreme Court does not agree with me. Please be specific. Thanks.

      replyreport
   4. 77

      Charluposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Trump has stated on numerous occasions he would make them public so what is the big deal.  She has the right as a reporter to express her opinion so what is the big deal. If you don't like or believe her then don't watch.

      replyreport
   5. 51

      bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Reporters report the new, opinions are not news. It is either reporting the news, or giving an editorial.

      replyreport
10. 0

    ahorsebackposted 7 years ago

    Maddow has lost  about 50 %  of her  watchers and readers ,    The people are the best gage of her liberal  bull -shoot !      She's just a minor part of a major media  problem - truth challenged !

    replyreport
    1. 81

       lovemychrisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       are you kidding? shes shot up to the top ten for her timeslot. and joy ann reid is doing great, too. the ladies are kicking butt at msnbc..and they have some great female reporters. unlike the t and a over at fixed snooze...they will bring trump down

       replyreport
    2. 77

       Charluposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       So why do you watch her?  I  mean you must have watched to be able to form your opinion right, or did you just accept hearsay?  Oh yeah where did you get your stats on the 50% rating drop?

       replyreport
    3. 83

       RJ Schwartzposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       Look at her ratings now Leslie - tanking

       replyreport
    4. 81

       lovemychrisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       i heard she shot up. but people are fickle. it was probably that tax return that turned some off. but she is doing fantastic reporting. anyone missing it...thats their loss. and i dont care what anyone else thinks. shes been a-mazing.

       replyreport
    5. 0

       promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       I wish people would learn to get their "facts" from credible sources and not some blog. Maddow is beating even O'Reilly, according to AdWeek.
       
       http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/rachel-m … emo/324218

       replyreport
    6. 51

       bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       Scott, is that what you get out this question. So you don't care about the leaks that are crimes. As long as liberals do it, it is OK. Like HRC and DNC fixing the primary.

       replyreport
    7. 81

       lovemychrisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       go rachel!! balls of steel.

       replyreport
11. 59

    DICESIposted 7 years ago

    She would first have to break the law in order for her to be charged and then prosecuted for anything.  The Supreme Court in Bartnicki v. Vopper, found that "a broadcaster cannot be held civilly liable for publishing documents or tapes illegally procured by a third party." Essentially, she has 1st Amendment protection. There will not be any charges forthcoming.  It's not even civilly liable, so not criminally either. In addition, it is evident that Trump released the tax return. It states Client copy on the bottom, it shows pretty favorable numbers; however, it conveniently is only the first two pages.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       savvydatingposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       That's interesting. By chance, do you know the year of the Bartniki v. Vopper case?

       replyreport
    2. 59

       DICESIposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       Hey, yes.  The case is 2001, but still good law.  It is also a Supreme Court opinion.

       replyreport
    3. 0

       savvydatingposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       Awesome. Thank you for responding, Dicesi.

       replyreport
    4. 51

       bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       How is it evident? You are making a wild guess that Trump released it. It is more like a baseless accusation but you pose it like a fact.

       replyreport
    5. 81

       lovemychrisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       qui bono brad, qui bono?

       replyreport
    6. 77

       Charluposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       Brad again Trump has stated numerous times he was going to make them public so what does it matter when?  That is of course unless he wanted to fix some things  hmmmmmm.  Then again who gave them to her?

       replyreport
    7. 51

       bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       Charlu, Are you serious. You don't see the difference?

       replyreport
    8. 83

       RJ Schwartzposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       I think you might want to check that fact - there is no guarantee that a reporter won't be charged - it's rare but possible

       replyreport