The New York Times' big scoop - based on information from 1995, Donald Trump might have done something.
The fire under all of this smoke is, of course, barely enough to light a cigar, but that’s not the point of the story. You’ll notice a constant set of phrases in all of the coverage of this “bombshell” release. They include things such as, might have and could have or may not have paid. That’s because the actual document only shows a massive loss which Trump claimed in 1995. What’s been established is that the loss in question opened the door to Trump potentially not owing any federal taxes over a considerable period of time because of the $916M loss. What’s also mentioned in decidedly muted tones is that if Trump wound up not owing any federal tax, that it was completely legal.
How about sharing someone's tax information. Is that legal?
I wonder where those tax documents came from? The person who the Times describes as an anonymous source might want to take a look at 26 U.S. Code § 6103 – Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information. The law has been broken here, but there’s scant mention of that in the Gray Lady. Imagine our surprise.
Since the New York Times and their allies are engaging in the speculation game here (“could have paid no taxes” etc.) let’s do a bit of that ourselves. What are the odds that the original person or persons who illegally obtained Trump’s tax documents and gifted them to the Gray Lady were only able to get their hands on a few pages of partial tax documents from a single year? Pretty much zero. There’s probably quite a bit more and the Times almost certainly is sitting on them, just as they likely sat on these documents until what they deemed was the most opportune time to provide the maximum help to Hillary Clinton.