WordPress version

                          

  About & Contact          Archives         Page One          Static Pages & Deep Analyses          Topics Index          Art


LogoPhere's Exclusive Hump-election Coverage


Pissin' on the circus to cool down the clowns, 
election coverage sure to have you scratchin' your head. 

(Daily updates, at least weekly)


"Hump"

The only up-side to this election I can see is that
no matter who loses, it'll be someone I absolutely despise.
--- Denis O'Brien


October 2, 2016


October IED #2 goes off in the Grey Lady's face

Hilton's PR machine, NYT, tells America that DTDuck is no tax-cheat after all. 


Blows it. 

 

Just 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 address!!!!  And even more amazingly, the return address was the freakin' Trump Towers!!!! Let that settle in your mind for a second before moving on. 

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.   

For 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 fix it."

~

More LogoPhere Hump-Election Coverage


Denis R. O'Brien, PhD/Esq.
denis [at-sign] thepatentguy [full stop] net

 

Copyright, Denis O'Brien, 2005-2016 ~ ~ All rights reserved.