New York Times “Blockbuster” -- Trump Followed Tax Law
RUSH: "Investigating Donald Trump, FBI Sees No Clear Link to Russia." It's on page 21, but it's there. "Investigating Donald Trump, FBI Sees No Clear Link to Russia," to the KGB. The New York Times reports it independently as well. On the front page of the New York Times, do you know what the headline is? I'm gonna read to you this headline verbatim: "Donald Trump Used Legally Dubious Method to Avoid Paying Taxes." So the front page of the New York Times above the fold is a story that Trump legally used the tax code in paying his taxes back in 1992. "Donald Trump Used Legally Dubious..." What do you mean "legally dubious"?
Why is it dubious? If it's legal, what do you mean dubious? It wasn't a "loophole." If it's a law, it's a law. There aren't any loopholes in the tax code. What they are trying to tell you a loophole is that you have people that write the tax law, which is the House Ways and Means Committee and other committees in the House. They write the tax law, and then what they want you to think a loophole is that some rich guy somewhere has had a battery of lawyers go through the tax code and find ways to beat the law and illegally not pay taxes that they should be paying.
And they call those "loopholes," as though people who write the tax laws enable illegal activity.
Well, folks, that's not what a loophole is. There are no loopholes! You use the tax law as it's written, and if it results in you not paying any taxes, there hasn't been any loophole, and there's nothing dubious. You're following the law. Legally means follow the law. Donald Trump used a lawful method to avoid paying taxes, but they throw the word "dubious" in there. That's not much, folks. That's not much. That's not a headline: "Donald Trump Breaks Law in Avoiding Paying Taxes." That's not what the headline says. Now, some low-information people on the Upper West Side, they might interpret it that way, but it's not what it says.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/donald-trump-tax.html
RUSH: "Investigating Donald Trump, FBI Sees No Clear Link to Russia." It's on page 21, but it's there. "Investigating Donald Trump, FBI Sees No Clear Link to Russia," to the KGB. The New York Times reports it independently as well. On the front page of the New York Times, do you know what the headline is? I'm gonna read to you this headline verbatim: "Donald Trump Used Legally Dubious Method to Avoid Paying Taxes." So the front page of the New York Times above the fold is a story that Trump legally used the tax code in paying his taxes back in 1992. "Donald Trump Used Legally Dubious..." What do you mean "legally dubious"?
Why is it dubious? If it's legal, what do you mean dubious? It wasn't a "loophole." If it's a law, it's a law. There aren't any loopholes in the tax code. What they are trying to tell you a loophole is that you have people that write the tax law, which is the House Ways and Means Committee and other committees in the House. They write the tax law, and then what they want you to think a loophole is that some rich guy somewhere has had a battery of lawyers go through the tax code and find ways to beat the law and illegally not pay taxes that they should be paying.
And they call those "loopholes," as though people who write the tax laws enable illegal activity.
Well, folks, that's not what a loophole is. There are no loopholes! You use the tax law as it's written, and if it results in you not paying any taxes, there hasn't been any loophole, and there's nothing dubious. You're following the law. Legally means follow the law. Donald Trump used a lawful method to avoid paying taxes, but they throw the word "dubious" in there. That's not much, folks. That's not much. That's not a headline: "Donald Trump Breaks Law in Avoiding Paying Taxes." That's not what the headline says. Now, some low-information people on the Upper West Side, they might interpret it that way, but it's not what it says.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/donald-trump-tax.html