It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rachel Maddow tweets. BREAKING We've got Trump tax returns. Tonight, 9pm ET. MSNBC.

page: 26
40
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 09:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueAjah

originally posted by: infolurker

originally posted by: Martin75

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: Martin75
a reply to: burgerbuddy
Someone left them in David Clay Johnson's mail box and he gifted this to her.



Yeah, they should investigate him for solicitation of the tax returns.

That's a felony charge for him and whoever in the IRS gave them to him.




I noticed on the copy of taxes there is a stamp of "Client Copy". Does that matter? Would both sides have that document or should that one be Trump's copy?


Of course, if someone wanted to cover their butts, ink stamps are cheap.



The leak might have been from the IRS. It might also have been someone in Trump's accounting department, or someone who had a copy for some other reason, such as a bank.

I wonder if MSNBC paid someone for the documents.



Given what they are and what it represented, I'm 99% sure that it was troll bait or a honeypot. MSNBC just happened to be the ones to fall for it.




posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 09:41 PM
link   
a reply to: WhyDidIJoin

Yeah, I know:

Obama paid 19% in 2014
Bernie Sanders paid 13% in 2014

Trump paid 25% in 2005



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 09:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ohanka
I wonder what important thing is going on in the world that this will cover up.

Well it was today, and since Trump was the focus, it was probably to distract people from researching the Russian Special forces which were just seen deployed in Egypt for a new base that will be fully operational in couple of years and ready to pacify Libya.

But I am just a conspiracy theorist,so what do I know now that this thread will die right here.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 09:42 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert


WHat questions are you talking about?




posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 09:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
LOL

Sister CNBC just published an op-ed that cracks Rachel.

Op-Ed: Donald Trump just got a nice victory, thanks, of all people, to Rachel Maddow








Oh fantastic. The narrative is already escaping poor Maddow's clutches.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 09:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE



Partisan hackery is being the only individual looking at the facts in this thread and supporting the manic, on TV, spewing conspiracy to support her failed news.


I actually said the opposite.



And yeah...that was some hammering but since you apparently didn't think so, I will refrain from being so cautious with your feelings in the future.


That was a hammering?



For some reason, my feelings are not concerned.



You would do better not sucking up to and supporting the extremely obvious hacks and liars of the left to at least gain some credibility so when you support a liberal on the edge...you may at least be given some credibility and thought. As it stands now, you don't have that. You are the boy who cried "no wolf" when everyone else saw the beast. Pitiful.


I have said many times that I thought Maddow dropped the ball. I just happen to recognize that inside of that #storm she created, she also had reasonable questions that I'd like to be perused.

But the answers to those questions may hurt the feeling of those that carry mighty kiddee hammers. So I can see why you are cautious.

Then maybe you need to define "reasonable questions". What is reasonable beyond what an individual decides to tell you? If they have committed a crime like Obama smoking pot? If they have ties to dangerous people like Bill Aires as Obama did? Or maybe if they were born in this country? What level of investigation without cause or proof is acceptable and warranted.

Do you simply think that because you personally think Trump may have done something wrong in the past, with no evidence what-so-ever that you have a right to have that investigated?



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 09:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: BlueAjah

originally posted by: infolurker

originally posted by: Martin75

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: Martin75
a reply to: burgerbuddy
Someone left them in David Clay Johnson's mail box and he gifted this to her.



Yeah, they should investigate him for solicitation of the tax returns.

That's a felony charge for him and whoever in the IRS gave them to him.




I noticed on the copy of taxes there is a stamp of "Client Copy". Does that matter? Would both sides have that document or should that one be Trump's copy?


Of course, if someone wanted to cover their butts, ink stamps are cheap.



The leak might have been from the IRS. It might also have been someone in Trump's accounting department, or someone who had a copy for some other reason, such as a bank.

I wonder if MSNBC paid someone for the documents.



Given what they are and what it represented, I'm 99% sure that it was troll bait or a honeypot. MSNBC just happened to be the ones to fall for it.


Could be... Maddow may just have been punked.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 09:44 PM
link   
4chan is having a riot with this.

>MSNBC publishes Trump's taxes that Trump himself probably leaked to them
>discovers he paid more in taxes in 2005 than 99% of Americans can even hope of having
>Trump can now say that MSNBC illegally obtained his tax returns and sue them into oblivion




posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 09:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueAjah

originally posted by: infolurker

originally posted by: Martin75

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: Martin75
a reply to: burgerbuddy
Someone left them in David Clay Johnson's mail box and he gifted this to her.



Yeah, they should investigate him for solicitation of the tax returns.

That's a felony charge for him and whoever in the IRS gave them to him.




I noticed on the copy of taxes there is a stamp of "Client Copy". Does that matter? Would both sides have that document or should that one be Trump's copy?


Of course, if someone wanted to cover their butts, ink stamps are cheap.



The leak might have been from the IRS. It might also have been someone in Trump's accounting department, or someone who had a copy for some other reason, such as a bank.

I wonder if MSNBC paid someone for the documents.




That's all a felony crime.

Someone needs to go to jail for this.




posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 09:44 PM
link   
I'm glad I decided to stay up for this. This made my week.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 09:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE



Whether they impede the future actions of an individual can only be proved after those actions take place.


How can we prove if their actions were wrong/unconstitutional if we do not know whom they are tied to?

That's the main point here.

If you have some proof of wrongdoing that the FBI, CIA, etc. don't have...lets see your proof. Otherwise, it is typically called a PARTISAN WITCH HUNT.


That does not address what I said.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 09:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE



Partisan hackery is being the only individual looking at the facts in this thread and supporting the manic, on TV, spewing conspiracy to support her failed news.


I actually said the opposite.



And yeah...that was some hammering but since you apparently didn't think so, I will refrain from being so cautious with your feelings in the future.


That was a hammering?



For some reason, my feelings are not concerned.



You would do better not sucking up to and supporting the extremely obvious hacks and liars of the left to at least gain some credibility so when you support a liberal on the edge...you may at least be given some credibility and thought. As it stands now, you don't have that. You are the boy who cried "no wolf" when everyone else saw the beast. Pitiful.


I have said many times that I thought Maddow dropped the ball. I just happen to recognize that inside of that #storm she created, she also had reasonable questions that I'd like to be perused.

But the answers to those questions may hurt the feeling of those that carry mighty kiddee hammers. So I can see why you are cautious.

Then maybe you need to define "reasonable questions". What is reasonable beyond what an individual decides to tell you? If they have committed a crime like Obama smoking pot? If they have ties to dangerous people like Bill Aires as Obama did? Or maybe if they were born in this country? What level of investigation without cause or proof is acceptable and warranted.

Do you simply think that because you personally think Trump may have done something wrong in the past, with no evidence what-so-ever that you have a right to have that investigated?


Apparently that is exactly what some people think and not only that, investigated in public by a partisan jury who won't even understand what they are looking at.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 09:45 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Another deflection.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 09:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: WhyDidIJoin

Yeah, I know:

Obama paid 19% in 2014
Bernie Sanders paid 13% in 2014

Trump paid 25% in 2005


But but but....

Bernie and Obama probably live in shacks, spending their every last penny supporting refuggeee children and helping people get health care, so they can't afford any more in taxes.

Now Trump paying around 25% he needs to pay more or else he hates kids and wants everypone to die without healthcare.

Why can't you see the difference?



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Dear Jesus, please hear my prayer:

Please let Trump be the one who leaked these records and please let that fact come to light. Then, please, let anti-Trump people go berserk about whether the records are fake or not.

Amen.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 09:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: BlueAjah

originally posted by: infolurker

originally posted by: Martin75

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: Martin75
a reply to: burgerbuddy
Someone left them in David Clay Johnson's mail box and he gifted this to her.



Yeah, they should investigate him for solicitation of the tax returns.

That's a felony charge for him and whoever in the IRS gave them to him.




I noticed on the copy of taxes there is a stamp of "Client Copy". Does that matter? Would both sides have that document or should that one be Trump's copy?


Of course, if someone wanted to cover their butts, ink stamps are cheap.



The leak might have been from the IRS. It might also have been someone in Trump's accounting department, or someone who had a copy for some other reason, such as a bank.

I wonder if MSNBC paid someone for the documents.



Given what they are and what it represented, I'm 99% sure that it was troll bait or a honeypot. MSNBC just happened to be the ones to fall for it.


Could be... Maddow may just have been punked.


I can't see it being as anything else. I guess there could be something in the works to capitalize on this with all of the mass exposure but that has yet to be seen. This makes Maddow and MSNBC look like fools. Complete opposite intended reaction.

Shouldn't they have known this???



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 09:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE



Whether they impede the future actions of an individual can only be proved after those actions take place.


How can we prove if their actions were wrong/unconstitutional if we do not know whom they are tied to?

That's the main point here.

If you have some proof of wrongdoing that the FBI, CIA, etc. don't have...lets see your proof. Otherwise, it is typically called a PARTISAN WITCH HUNT.


That does not address what I said.


I think it is clear what you are saying. You are worried about conflicts of interest and don't trust the IC and Congress to investigate, so you would prefer people like Rachael Maddow to take charge.
Sounds like a plan

edit on 14/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 09:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ohanka
I'm glad I decided to stay up for this. This made my week.


The fun continues, turn on Fox News.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 09:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ansuzrune
a reply to: jhn7537
Who the F cares. I would really like to know how the last president came in worthless and a popper now possess millions of dollars!!! Good God you liberals are sick. President Trumps taxes will be so complicated with write offs and losses your puny minds can't fathom it. Go find a commie island safe room and eat your popcorn.


Hell...if Maddow and her Pulitzer Prize winning journalist that specializes in financial reporting couldn't figure them out prior to making fools of themselves....i am pretty sure their viewership has no idea what a write off even is.

Funny thing is that this Johnston guy has a major hard-on for Trump...for something like 30 years now he has been following him...even wrote a book recently to capitalize on Trumps fame and published during his candidacy....funny how it works.

I could totally see Trump leaking this to that idiot just to outwit him for making money off his name...LOL!

I don't think he will be seeing any more Pulitzer Prizes, nor many hit stories in his future. What a putz.



posted on Mar, 14 2017 @ 09:47 PM
link   
a reply to: weirdguy
Oh God NOOOOO!!!!!!




top topics



 
40
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join