when you knew it was coming, there it is. The October of each
election year is the season of political IEDs, and on Oct01 the second
political IED of the season went off. At this rate, our flak
jackets will be shredded by election day.
Yesterday David Barstow, Susanne Craig,
Russ Buettner, and Megan Twohey of the NYT
all shot themselves in the collective and proverbial foot by vindicating Donald
The Duck's "That makes me smart" quip in Hump Debate #1.
According to the story, some unnamed person
sent Craig et al. the first page from each of DTDuck's 1995 NY, NJ, and CT
state tax returns. Amazingly, the envelope had a return
And even more amazingly, the return address was the freakin' Trump
Towers!!!! Let that settle in your mind for a second before
But note this fine point: being unnamed and
being anonymous are two different things. Nowhere in the article do Craig
et al. state that the sender is unknown or anonymous, they just imply
that. I mean, fer' crizz-sake, the envelope in which possibly
illegally obtained documents were sent had a frickin' return address. So
these reporters would be brain-ded not to know the source. And seeing
how's this story is about imputed dishonesty, unethical conduct, and lack
of transparency, perhaps Barstow, Craig, Buettner, and Twohey should be
revealing how they got their slimy fingers on DTDuck's tax documents. My
speculation is that DTDuck's prior accountant, Jack Mitnick, who
plays a huge role in the NYT's IED, would have some useful information on
where those three pages came from.
all we know Craig could have mailed the documents to herself. And the
reason I say it is because whoever did mail the documents may have
committed a federal felony merely by using US mail. Now, I am not a criminal lawyer,
and I certainly don't know if Craig or her buds sent the documents with a
Trump Towers return address to the NYT, and I don't know whether
unauthorized possession of a private person's tax documents is illegal.
But I'll bet donuts to dollars that we'll find out before this is all over.
And so, by whatever means
they used -- legal or illegal -- the NYT writers got their hands on three pieces of paper out of
thousands of pages DTDuck would have filed in those three states and to
the IRS. Then the NYT writers hired their own "tax
experts" to examine these three pieces of paper. That's right
"experts" as in plural. As in more than one. As in
how many freakin' experts does it take to look at the front pages of three
state tax returns and tell you what they mean? Well, folks, they were just makin'
sure, to borrow a phrase from Arlo.
And here is where the IED blows up in the
faces of the NYT and Hilton, for the real story here is that DTDuck
is not a tax-cheat. I mean after that sleazy "That makes me
smart" remark in the debate, he left us all thinking "Why you
slime-bag. You're a shameless tax-cheat." But what Craig et al.
have just told us is that DTDuck is not doing anything at all underhanded
or sleazy. He is what any person running a business in the US does:
he writes off his loses. He takes full advantage of deductions that
the Congress and the tax code allows. This is called "writing
off a net operating loss," and if you own a business and you've never
heard of it, you need to go back to flipping burgers, which probably goes
for nincompoops in general, including Barstow, Craig, Buettner, and Twohey.
What these gormless NYT writers would have
us believe is that a person running for president has some sort of
retroactive obligation to pay more taxes that the tax code demands. IOW,
if it's 1995 and you might run for president some day, you should not be
writing off net operating losses because 10 years down the road some idiot
NYT reporters might try to turn your legitimate deductions into an IED if
you do run for president.
Uncharacteristically, the DTDuck
organization came up with the perfect response (other than the grammatical
flaws): "Mr. Trump knows the tax code far better than anyone who has
ever run for President(,) and he is the only one that [sic] knows how to
LogoPhere Hump-Election Coverage