September 28, 2020

New York Times publishes Donald Trump's tax returns in election bombshell. He Dismisses Report That He Paid Little In Federal Income Taxes

 NPR


President Trump takes a question during a news conference at the White House on Sunday, where he dismissed reporting from the "New York Times" that he has paid little or no federal income taxes in recent years as "fake news."

Joshua Roberts/Getty Images

New York Times investigation published on Sunday found that President Trump paid just $750 in federal income taxes each year in 2016 and in 2017, which the president denied at a news conference using a familiar retort: "fake news."

The Times cites Trump's long sought-after tax returns, further reporting that he paid no income taxes at all in 10 of the previous 15 years, as Trump reported massive losses to his businesses.

Among its other findings, the investigation determined that Trump has hundreds of millions of dollars in loans that are set to come due within the next four years — potentially his second term in office — and that he's battling the Internal Revenue Service over a nearly $73 million tax refund he claimed a decade ago. The Times said an "adverse ruling [in that audit case] could cost him more than $100 million."

All told, the investigation provides the most detailed accounting yet of the finances of a president with massive business interests who's sought to shield the details of those finances from the American public.

NPR has not confirmed any of the details from the filings; the Times didn't post any of its source documents to protect sources, according to the story.

When asked about the report during a Sunday evening news conference, Trump refused to detail what he's paid in federal income taxes, saying simply: "I've paid a lot."

He said "it'll all be revealed" when his tax returns can be released after audit — something he's said for years. (In fact, an audit would not prevent the president from releasing his records.)

Trump has previously bragged about not paying taxes.

"That makes me smart," he said in a 2016 debate against Hillary Clinton, when she accused him of not paying federal income taxes.

Responding to the Times, Alan Garten, a lawyer for the Trump Organization, told the publication that "most, if not all, of the facts appear to be inaccurate."

The Times says it obtained over 20 years of tax return data for Trump and the myriad companies that make up his organization.

Here are other key findings of the New York Times:

  • Some reductions in the president's tax liability came from unexplained consulting fees. The Times cites evidence that some of the fees may have been paid to his daughter, Ivanka Trump, though she was not an outside figure, given her role as a top official in the Trump Organization. If that were true, it could create further legal peril.
  • Trump's long-running IRS audit stems from a refund he claimed in 2010 totaling $72.9 million, which appears to be based on a questionable move by the president to claim he was walking away from his Atlantic City casino business.
  • More than $70,000 paid to style Trump's hair for his former reality show The Apprentice was written off on his taxes as a business expense. He's also written off costs related to residences and aircraft that many would consider personal expenses.
  • The president's businesses have brought in lots of money from overseas, detailed precisely for the first time in this report, according to the Times. In his first two years in the White House, Trump earned $73 million from overseas, mostly from his golf courses in the British Isles. He also earned millions from the Philippines, India and Turkey.
  • Trump and his companies paid taxes of $15,598 in Panama, $145,400 in India and $156,824 in the Philippines in 2017, one of the years the report says Trump paid just $750 in income taxes to the U.S. government.

The Times report was explicit that it did not find any previously unknown connections to Russia, something that critics of the president have speculated would be revealed in his tax returns.

Trump's political opponents for years have sought his personal financial records, after he broke decades of presidential precedent by not voluntarily releasing his tax returns during the 2016 campaign or since.

Trump has also not divested from his family business, creating layers of financial entanglements and potential conflicts of interest, including business deals that could be subject to decisions by foreign leaders.

Last year, House Ways and Means Committee Chair Richard Neal, D-Mass., sued federal officials to try to obtain six years of Trump's tax returns. In July of this year, the Supreme Court sent the case back to a lower court.

"It appears that the President has gamed the tax code to his advantage and used legal fights to delay or avoid paying what he owes," Neal said in a statement Sunday evening. He added: "Our case is very strong, and we will ultimately prevail."

GUARDIAN

Donald Trump, a self-proclaimed billionaire, paid only $750 in federal income taxes in the year he was elected US president, according to a stunning New York Times investigation that could shake up the presidential election.

“Trump taxes show chronic losses and years of tax avoidance,” was the banner headline on the paper’s website on Sunday. The president’s tax returns have long been the holy grail of American political reporting.

The president “paid $750 in federal income taxes the year he won the presidency”, the paper reported, adding that “in his first year in the White House, he paid another $750.

“He had paid no income taxes at all in 10 of the previous 15 years – largely because he reported losing much more money than he made.”

In all, the paper said, Trump paid no federal income taxes in 11 of 18 years its reporters examined. Many of his businesses, including his golf courses, report significant financial losses – which have helped him to lower his taxes.

The Times also said the documents it had obtained “comprise information that Mr Trump has disclosed to the IRS, not the findings of an independent financial examination. They report that Mr Trump owns hundreds of millions of dollars in valuable assets, but they do not reveal his true wealth. Nor do they reveal any previously unreported connections to Russia.”

The paper said it would not publish the documents, in order to protect its source.

 'Fake news': Trump denies tax claims from New York Times – video

At a White House press briefing on Sunday, Trump made wild allegations about plots against him and about Biden, who he will debate for the first time on Tuesday. Eventually, he dismissed the Times report as “totally fake news”.

He said: “We went through the same stories, you could have asked me the same questions four years ago, I had to litigate this and talk about it.

“Totally fake news, no. Actually I paid tax. And you’ll see that as soon as my tax returns – it’s under audit, they’ve been under audit for a long time. The [Internal Revenue Service] does not treat me well … they treat me very badly. You have people in the IRS – they treat me very badly.”

The president added: “The New York Times tried it, the same thing, they want to create a little bit of a story. They’re doing anything they can. That’s the least of it. The stories that I read are so fake, they’re so phony.”

Pressed on why a billionaire only paid a few hundred dollars in the year he won the presidency, Trump insisted: “First of all I paid a lot, and I paid a lot of state income taxes too. The New York state charges a lot and I paid a lot of money in state. It’ll all be revealed. It’s going to come out but after the audit.”

The revelations threaten to damage Trump’s repeated claim to be a successful businessman and therefore a capable steward of the US economy.

The Times also said he has used “questionable measures” to reduce his tax bill. He faced a possible hit of “more than $100m” if he lost “a decade-long audit battle with the IRS over the legitimacy of a $72.9m tax refund that he claimed, and received, after declaring huge losses”.

It promised more stories in the coming weeks, adding: “The tax returns that Mr Trump has long fought to keep private tell a story fundamentally different from the one he has sold to the American public.”

Trump will face Joe Biden at the polls on 3 November. He has long resisted demands by political opponents and the media to release decades of tax information. He is the first president since the 1970s to keep his tax returns concealed.

The Times reported on Trump family tax affairs in late 2018, winning a Pulitzer Prize.

“Even while declaring losses, he has managed to enjoy a lavish lifestyle by taking tax deductions on what most people would consider personal expenses, including residences, aircraft and $70,000 in hairstyling for television,” the Times reported on Sunday.

“Ivanka Trump, while working as an employee of the Trump Organization, appears to have received ‘consulting fees’ that also helped reduce the family’s tax bill.”

The paper added: “Over the past two decades, Mr Trump has paid about $400m less in combined federal income taxes than a very wealthy person who paid the average for that group each year.”

Alan Garten, a lawyer for the Trump Organization, told the Times that “most, if not all, of the facts appear to be inaccurate”.

He said: “Over the past decade, President Trump has paid tens of millions of dollars in personal taxes to the federal government, including paying millions in personal taxes since announcing his candidacy in 2015.”

The newspaper pointed out that “personal taxes” appeared to cover other federal taxes, including social security and Medicare.

The report prompted instant criticism. Ryan Thomas, a spokesperson for the progressive advocacy organisation Stand Up America, said: “Four years ago, Donald Trump broke decades of precedent when he refused to release his tax returns to the public. At each turn since, he’s attempted to shield his financial records from the public – even as congressional and criminal investigators look into how he’s profited off the presidency and his decades of fraudulent tax schemes.

“We’ve demanded Trump’s tax returns for years because the American people deserve to know what he’s paying – and the answer appears to be very little. A man who uses dubious tax schemes to avoid paying taxes or lies to the public about his finances has no place in the Oval Office.

“This is just one more reason why we must vote to evict him.”





The Election That Could Break America

 

If the vote is close, Donald Trump could easily throw the election into chaos and subvert the result. Who will stop him?

Fallen voting booth with red emergency light

ATLANTIC

FRESH AIR

In the first presidential debate, President Trump was asked if he would refrain from declaring victory until the election has been independently certified. He refused to make that commitment.

Atlantic writer Barton Gellman was not surprised.

"That's a man who won't leave," Gellman says. "There are many aspects of his past behavior and, frankly, his pathology that lead me to think this is an immutable decision on his part."

Gellman writes about the 2020 presidential election — and how he thinks it could trigger a constitutional crisis — in his latest article for The Atlantic. He notes that typically elections are ended when one candidate concedes to the other. It's a system, he says, that "presumes good behavior and presumes that a rational and well-meaning candidate will accept reality when it comes."

But Gellman does not trust a scenario that relies upon good faith from the president: "Trump is making as absolutely plain as he can that he will fight the mail vote, that he will try to get the vote count stopped, and that he will not accept any result that is not a victory for him."

At a rally over the weekend, Trump mocked the media for raising alarms about his earlier answer to a question about a peaceful transfer of power after the election. "Then they say, 'He doesn't want to turn over government' — of course I do. But it's got to be a fair election," he said, before repeating unfounded claims about widespread voter fraud.

Gellman says if the election is close, it could take weeks to determine the results in key battleground states as mail-in ballots are scrutinized for technical flaws and counted. If the president cries fraud and his supporters take to the streets, state legislatures could resolve to set aside the popular vote in their states and choose their own partisan delegations to the Electoral College.

While officials are preparing for a worst-case scenario, many believe the casting and counting of ballots will proceed normally, albeit more slowly, on election night.

"This is not going to be a normal election," Gellman says. "I think that preserving its legitimacy is going to take extra effort this year. Democrats are certainly aware of Trump's proclivities. They're certainly concerned about possibilities that he will cheat or try to hang on to power by means other than winning the most votes and counting all the votes. Trump has made it absolutely crystal clear that he does not want all the votes to be counted."

Interview Highlights

On a common misconception regarding Trump's threat to refuse to concede

It's a subtle difference, but an important one: The usual way people say it is that they fear that Trump will refuse to leave the White House if he loses. He'll refuse to give up the reins of power. And Joe Biden says, well, that's an easy one. If he loses and he stays there, someone will evict him. That will most likely be the Secret Service or the military. They'll say, "Excuse me, sir, but your lease has expired on this office. It's 12:01 on Jan. 20, and we're going to now assist you in departing." That works if there is a clear winner or loser.

The greater danger is that Trump is capable of using the powers of the presidency, and the powers of his invincible decision not to concede, to raise doubt whether a winner or loser has yet been established — that he can prevent the achievement of a decisive outcome, which is a far greater risk to the American system.

On the fact that mail-in ballots skew in favor of Democratic candidates

It is true that for about 20 years now, the so-called overtime count, which is the count of the late reporting precincts, the provisional ballots and the mail-in or absentee ballots, that overtime count has shifted towards Democrats for reasons that are not entirely explained by the literature, but are technical ones. ... Trump has accentuated that this year by signaling to Republicans that he's against mail-in ballots and that they're corrupt, and by signaling to Republicans as well that the COVID pandemic is not as serious as the scientists say it is. And so Democrats, concerned about their health, are intending to use mail ballots at much higher rates than Republicans are, because Republicans have been pushed away deliberately by Trump from the mail-in ballots. So that now a mail-in ballot by proxy is likelier to be a Democratic ballot, because of underlying circumstances and because of Trump's shaping of the electorate. So his lawyers will know that if they are stopping the count of mail ballots, they are, on balance, almost certainly helping the president.

On how some states have to wait to process mail-in ballots until Election Day

Some [states] say Election Day morning. Some [state laws] even say ... they can't start until Election Day evening. And it has been part of the Republican litigation strategy in 41 states over the past year to prevent state law from allowing more time in advance of the election to open the early arriving ballots.

So the Trump campaign has actually helped make it less likely that those ballots will be counted on time on election night, because if they said you could start two weeks earlier ... if the administrators could do all the verification and simply leave them ready to feed into the machine for counting, they could do that as they came in, as they can, for example, in Florida, because of state law there. ... The Florida vote is expected to be pretty well-known by the end of election night, because Florida will have presorted all the mail-in ballots. That's what state law says there. But the Trump campaign has opposed that method when other states have proposed to change it right now.

On how representatives might go about challenging mail-in ballots

Both Democrats and Republicans are allowed to have a representative at the time that these ballots are processed. The Republican strategy is going to be to challenge each and every mail in-ballot if they can find any reason at all to do so. And so the administrator will pull out one ballot from this, this pile of hundreds of thousands in any given state, or millions given the state, and they'll do this by county, I suppose. And the Republican representative will say "Object. Signature doesn't match." And then everyone will sort of squint over the squiggly lines [and], without the benefit of any expert training, have to try to decide is that signature a good match or not a good match? "That postmark is illegible. You can't prove that it was mailed in time." So I think you may see postmarks or missing postmarks or poorly printed postmarks becoming the new sort of hanging chads of this election. That's the way the vote-by-vote challenge is going to go.

On both parties being ready for litigation

The two sides have each hired hundreds of lawyers and recruited thousands of lawyers as volunteers for what they believe is going to be a multistate cluster of litigation on the scale that took place in Florida in 2000, which was monumental. That was one state. The expectation is that there could be several states on which the result hinges and the vote is close, and the margin of litigation is sufficient that both sides are going to pour in all the effort they can in litigating the rules and the vote count.

On the Republican side being free of court supervision for the first time since 1981

This is the first time in 40 years that we're going to have a presidential election without a court supervising the Republican "ballot security operations" on Election Day. Republicans were caught doing all kinds of voter suppression and intimidation in 1981, and a lawsuit against the Republican National Committee placed the RNC under a consent decree, a court order, that forbade it to use many methods of voter purging, voter intimidation. The Republicans had rounded up large numbers of law enforcement and former military people wearing armbands and guns, carrying radios, confronting voters and demanding evidence of their right to vote, warning them that it's a felony to vote when you're not eligible in the correct neighborhood, confronting poll workers who tried to help voters as they're legally allowed to do. This was in New Jersey, but it was a nationwide consent decree. And the methods that had been used in New Jersey were widely known methods and had been used for decades to suppress, in particular, the votes of people of color in this country. ...

And there was a consent decree here that lasted for decades, and it expired in 2018. And this time the Election Day operations of the Republican side are going to be free of court supervision. They're going to be able to decide for themselves how they operate that day, and maybe they'll be sued after the fact, but it will be too late to make much difference in terms of the outcome. The Trump campaign is recruiting what it's calling "an army for Trump." The president's son [Donald Trump Jr.] has gone on television calling for "all able-bodied men and women" — Why able-bodied? What kind of physical confrontation does he have in mind at the polls? — "all able-bodied men and women to stop the election from being stolen by Democrats."

On some of the other ways Trump might contest results

I think there's reasonable concern that when the president and his son are using the rhetoric they're using about the need to secure an election against people trying to steal it, when the president has supporters who are prepared to carry weapons and to appoint themselves into militia-like roles, there's a significant concern that there will be violence or physical disorder at the polls on election night and afterward during the canvass.

Here we get purely into the realm of speculation, but I think with a president like Trump who has shown a complete disregard for boundaries of law and norms, we have to worry also about what he might do that no one's done before. He's the incumbent president. He's the chief law enforcement officer of the country under the Constitution. He's the commander in chief of the armed services. What is he prepared to do in terms of deployment of U.S. forces? Is he prepared to order postal inspectors to seize and impound mail-in ballots on grounds that they have been forged or that there's been an investigation into foreign fraud and therefore all those ballots must be seized and frozen in place and not counted? Is he prepared to send in U.S. marshals or Justice or [Department of Homeland Security] officials from other sub agencies to secure the peace, to secure the ballots, to preserve evidence, ostensibly. There are a lot of ways this could go very badly. And I think that no president has done it before. There are laws that would seem to constrain him from doing that. But I have little doubt that Bill Barr, the attorney general, is capable of finding executive authority for the president to do whatever he likes on Election Day. The question to me is, really, whether he thinks he can get away with it.

On what we can do to prepare for Election Day

I think because the mail-in ballots are going to be so much the subject of litigation, I've changed my own mind personally on how I'm going to vote. I'm going to vote in person because I think the worst case is that the president is ahead on election night and that a fuller count of the vote over coming days and weeks shows that Biden wins. That's a very bad case because you have the possibility of weeks of serious disturbance in between.

I think anyone who can volunteer to be a poll worker should do so. I think if you know anyone who is open to reason, you should make sure they know that it's normal and natural and lawful and proper for the count to continue to change after election night and that it's sure to do so this time.

And then think about where you stand in relation to the election. If you were a mayor, you might want to think about how you deploy your police on Election Day to prevent the intervention of outsiders with bad intent. If you are a law enforcement officer, think about how the primacy of your mission to protect the vote, the most fundamental right we have in this country. If you're a member of the military chain of command, you should pause to remember that you have an obligation to disobey unlawful orders and think about ways in which you might be misused during the course of an election.

If you're a civil servant, we need you more than ever, I think, to say "no" to the wrong thing, to do the right thing, when you're asked to do the wrong thing. You go down the list. There are a lot of people who have an influence over, broadly speaking, this moment of transition in this country between one presidential administration and another. And it may be a second term for Trump. I certainly don't rule out that he could be reelected legitimately. But we have to make sure that the vote is counted, that all the votes are counted and that the election is decided by the voters and not by some other machinations.

The GOP’s Long March to Fascism Finally Arrives With Trump 2020

 DESTROYING TRUTH

It turns out the most important anti-truth of recent vintage was the one about voter fraud. This is what Trump will use to steal the election if he can.

DAILY BEAST

OPINION

Photo Illustration by Sarah Rogers/The Daily Beast/Photos Getty

Donald Trump's refusal to commit to a peaceful transfer of power, though shocking, was no surprise. It's a dark, culminating step, although not the dark, culminating step, because that is still yet to come, of a long march, a step-by-step chipping away at democratic norms that long predates him.

At the heart of it: relentless attacks on the truth, large and small, year after year, decade after decade, until the point is reached where roughly 40 percent of the people still cling to truth, but another 40 percent have come to believe anti-truth, and the 20 percent in the middle don't know what to think. And that's how you put a knife in democracy's heart.

Small case in point. I watched about five minutes of Sean Hannity Tuesday night, and it was enough to get the drift. The segment was devoted to the lionization and martyrization of teenage Kenosha shooter Kyle Rittenhouse, a campaign that’s been underway for weeks now.

Let’s make sure we have this right: A legal minor leaves his house in Illinois toting a semi-automatic weapon, crosses state lines into a state where it’s illegal for a minor to carry a gun except while hunting or at a range with an adult, saying it’s his job to protect the community (of which he is not a part), then he gets approached or accosted by two people who aren’t carrying guns and allegedly shoots them. This is what is what is being converted on Fox and elsewhere into an act of self-defense.

The obliteration of truth is essential to fascist movements. People who are fascists at heart know this in their bones, even if they’ve never read a book and don’t know Filippo Marinetti from Mario Andretti. They must destroy truth. Not by merely lying. They must tell anti-truths: things that are direct, frontal assaults on truth.

The reason is simple: Truth is a core value of democracy, and, importantly, of democratic power-sharing. In the golden age of American bipartisanship, from 1945 until maybe 1990, Democrats and Republicans disagreed on how to address a budget hole or a particular social problem. But they agreed that it existed. They agreed on the facts.

Yes, the country took a sharp turn to the right after 1980; and yes, certain non-truths were advanced then that from time to time one sensed a Weimaresque odor in the air: ketchup was a vegetable; trees caused pollution; Saddam Hussein was a good guy. But most of the time, Reagan accepted facts, such as that Social Security was in trouble in 1983, which is why he agreed to tax increases. George H.W. Bush did, too.

The effort to obliterate truth, and to elevate ideology and culture higher than factual truth, really began with Newt Gingrich. He was our first proto-fascist politician. He just said things, vicious things, out of thin air, complete inventions (one-quarter of Clinton White House staffers were taking illegal drugs), and he said them with intent—as a political weapon, to heighten the tension, divide us into camps.

This man is dangerous, some said. Oh, yes, he’s over the top sometimes. But you gotta admit he’s interesting.

Then came Rush Limbaugh. The entire purpose of his show from the beginning was to destroy truth and any sense of common, shared reality. And to get conservatives to leap from disagreeing with liberals to despising them. This, too, is a necessary ingredient of authoritarian power: domestic foes are evil. Subhuman.

This guy is way over the line, many said. Well, yes, in some ways; but look, bottom line, he’s an entertainer. People don’t really take him that seriously.

Then came Tom DeLay. Often overlooked these days, DeLay was a crucial soldier in this march to bury truth. He really started the aggressive gerrymandering and enforced the Hastert Rule—in other words, he made the first serious moves toward the anti-democratic stacking of the electoral deck to rig the game, which is the kind of thing you get away with, as DeLay knew, by accusing the other side of doing it. Then of course he was a key player in the Terri Schiavo madness, using that poor woman (in a vegetative state with no hope of recovery, her doctors said) as a bullet in the culture war.

And of course there was Karl Rove back in those days, too. John Kerry was a war hero, an upper-class Yale graduate who could easily have skipped the army but who volunteered anyway; who killed how many men for his country, risked his life how many times, we still don’t know. But Rove knew that he had to obliterate those truths in 2004, and the way to do that was to tell a morally sick anti-truth: to turn Kerry into a coward and a traitor.

DeLay and Rove, many of us were writing and saying, are taking this country to dark, unprecedented places. Oh, yes, some of this is pretty shocking, more hardball than usual. But creeping fascism? Don’t be silly.

On and on it went, too many steps to name here, each one taking us that much closer to the rendezvous with destiny that awaits us after Nov. 3. Barack Obama was a Kenyan, a Muslim. The antichrist, even. Subhuman, in other words. This was where Donald Trump started joining in, and from there, it made sense that each of those desecrations of truth led to Trump. I feel like an idiot today for thinking in the summer of 2015 that he’d fade in a few months. I didn’t understand how many millions of people had been persuaded to embrace unreality.

Now, it turns out the most important anti-truth of recent vintage was the one about voter fraud. This is what Trump will use to steal the election if he can.

If current polls hold, Joe Biden will win by maybe 6.5 or 7 points nationally, which could be as many as 10 million votes, and The Economist as I write these words predicts a 333-205 Electoral College majority for Biden. Trump and Bill Barr and Fox News and all the rest of them will call even this illegitimate—10 million votes, and 128 electoral votes. And they’ll pull every trick they can, from Nov. 4 to Jan. 20. That Barton Gellman piece The Atlantic posted Wednesday covered much of the grim territory.

They’ll say then the most outlandish things they’ve ever said, things that will shock us (even though we think we’re beyond shocking), because fascists know: The clearer the factual truth, the louder and more outrageous must be the anti-truth.

I can’t believe I’m writing this way about the United States. But then again, I’ve seen this coming for a long time. I just never really thought we would end up all the way here. But it’s where Donald Trump has brought us.

Two people died and one was seriously wounded in shootings during the protests in Kenosha, Wis.

 

“The shootings came after a confrontation between protesters and armed men who said they were protecting a gas station,” Mark Guarino and Jaclyn Peiser report. “Kenosha County Sheriff David Beth told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that police are searching for a man seen in video footage holding a long gun. Shots were fired around 11:45 p.m. Tuesday, police said. After the first shots, a young White man carrying a rifle began running north on Sheridan Road, away from a crowd of protesters. Video shows the armed man fall to the ground, and then fire multiple rounds into the crowd. Two more people fell to the ground, one shot in the arm and the other in the chest, the Journal Sentinel reported. … Beth told the Times that investigators are looking into the armed men in front of the gas station, who were recorded before the shooting arguing with protesters. One of the men told The Washington Post that he was there to stop people from breaking into local businesses, noting that he’d seen rumors online about pipe bombs being used. ‘If the cops aren’t going to stop them from throwing pipe bombs on innocent civilians, somebody has to,’ said an armed man in a red checkered shirt, who declined to give his name. (There’s no indication that any pipe bombs were involved in Tuesday’s unrest.)”

Jacob Blake’s family called for peace in the streets and the arrest of the officers who shot him. “Anger-fueled protests radiated across the nation Tuesday as the family of a 29-year-old Black man shot in the back by police in [Kenosha, Wis.] demanded swift action,” Guarino, Mark Berman, Peiser and Griff Witte report. “Julia Jackson, Blake’s mother, asked for Americans to show ‘how humans are supposed to treat each other.’ But the family also pinned responsibility for Blake’s grievous injuries on what they called a racist law enforcement system that brutalizes Black people, and expressed dismay that his shooter had not yet been fired or charged.