Hard to imagine it matters at this point. I don't think there's anyone "on the fence" about Trump for this to sway.

@agbemacht

I'd still rather know more facts. facts are good.

Which do you think will be the most embarrassing info?


Trump is poorer than he claims
Russian business ties
How little he gave to charity and to which ones
Business losses show how bad he was in business
Donated to Democratic candidates including Hillary Clinton

poorer than he claims, though donating to Clinton would be great

Not according to the leader of the free world. Treason!

^facts are treason

@JmaesYanik

I'd rather know, too. My point was just that I don't think there are facts that will turn people against Trump who haven't already.

that's fair, but i also don't think news about Hitler would sway the Nazis, if I were 1938 Poland... I'd rather know

even though Poland knew about Germany's plans, began attacking the Enigma's cipher years before the war, and their "Bombes" would be the framework for Turing's computer, which would bring us into the modern age. of course the real history of the computer goes back to Charles Babbage's analytical machine no. 2 - fun fact, he was the first person to truly solve the vigenere square, though he never published his multi-string analysis, so the credit goes to Kasiski who did an absolute destruction of the cipher about a decade later. in any case, Poland were decades in front of any other country in terms of cryptanalysis, and helped reignite an ancient war in-between codemakers, and codebreakers. For more, see Simon Singh, The Code Book: AMAZING READ, 100% recommend it. history through the lenses of secrecy.



that metaphor got out of hand sorry guys

You realize contributions to political candidates are non deductible and don't show up on personal tax returns.

Who'd have guessed Yanik is a geek?

I predict the word loophole used about 100 times to describe legitimate tax planning strategies available to anyone filing under the internal revenue code.

I guess I was a geek, though I'll concede I had prior knowledge not made available to the public

Too bad it is 2005. The more recent ones would be valuable to see how much Russian and Chinese money is involved. The thing that would make me worried is finding out that, say, Trump is $200 million in debt to the Bank of China. Oh, and seeing $19 billion stake in Rosneft would be interesting, but that would only be from the 2016 return.

I want to see Rachel Maddow's tax returns and her credit card numbers and bank accounts and ssn

If the glove don't fit, you must acquit! If this doesn't conclusively prove wrongdoing, then Trump is a boy scout, right?

I want to know what federal laws Rachel Maddow is breaking in releasing them. Lock her up!

Lookie here: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-latest-trump-releases-tax-info-ahead-of-tv-report/ar-AAolPs4?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

"You realize contributions to political candidates are non deductible and don't show up on personal tax returns."

According to Trump, these are business expenses. Like paying money to the Mob for construction and other suppliers they own.

Guys... what if there actually is NOTHINg wrong with Trump's tax returns? and then exposing them, would simply make all the people demanding them look petty and trying to vilify him?

that'd be a house of cards level genius move

2005 and only partial. Lame.

That's incorrect Randomizer. Political contributions are non deductible for individuals or businesses. However they are sometimes listed on a business return as addbacks to book income, they are not listed on personal returns anywhere.

"what if there actually is NOTHINg wrong with Trump's tax returns?"

The marxists would do what they always do: ignore inconvenient facts and change the subject. They have no soul you see.

If all his tax returns are as clean as this, trump is legit. Let's take a look so we can shut up his detractors.

Classic Brad, holding his president to low standards.

"Classic Brad, holding his president to low standards."

Says the Clinton voter.

breath-taking

Sounds like the discovery was ground breaking, what did we learn from 2 pages of a tax return?

@fiedler I voted for Clinton!?

Doesn't sound like anything was discovered. Seems like Maddow was clickbaiting. I don't doubt that there's something awful in those returns (otherwise he wouldn't have backed down on his promise to reveal them after the election...) but it's probably not something that's been ongoing since 2005.