The Trump Tax ‘Bombshell’

Last night, the New York Times continued its attack on Donald Trump by dropping this ‘bombshell,’ publishing a leaked copy of part of Trump’s 1995 tax returns.

Here’s the bottom line: Trump declared a loss of over $900 million in 1995. By law, one is allowed to carry forward losses in one year to future years, which reflects the simple fact that the life cycle of a business doesn’t necessarily line up perfectly with the date.

In other words, if a business has a $5 million loss in one year, and a $6 million profit in the next, during the year with the losses, no taxes were paid. In the year in which the profit was made, the profits from the prior year is ‘carried forward,’ to reflect the fact that the business made a $1 million profit across two years. The IRS allows one to apply losses for up to 18 years, as long as it exceeds income made over that time.

Nothing about this is illegal, or even uncontroversial. The guy who owns a dry cleaner at your local strip mall faces these issues.

Yet the NYT used intentionally misleading language for the sole purpose of duping a misinformed electorate into thinking Trump has somehow gamed the system at the expense of the little guy.

The title of the piece itself is ‘Trump Tax Records Obtained by The Times Reveal He Could Have Avoided Paying Taxes for Nearly Two Decades.’ The use of the word ‘avoided’ is intentional, suggesting Trump did something sneaky. The bottom line is you don’t pay taxes on a loss, so Trump didn’t ‘avoid’ anything.

The piece spends a great deal of time talking about how the loss represented a devastation and heartbreak for those affected, while Trump was able to skate through unscathed because of extraordinary tax privileges apparently only he was privy to.

The truth is that the real estate industry was decimated in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Plenty of developers were devastated in a similar fashion to Trump. The difference was that Trump was the most high profile of the developers at the time, and as such his business trials and tribulations were in the public domain. To the extent he was fortunate lies in the fact that most developers would have been totally wiped out by a near $1 billion loss. Trump wasn’t, because he convinced the banks to work with him, so he didn’t have to liquidate all of the holdings he had already built up. Call it luck, or great negotiating, but that’s what happened. Nothing nefarious.

Yet, it will play that way to the average voter, for whom these sort of dealings are completely foreign. The concept of carrying forward a loss won’t resonate with them, and therefore they’ll be amenable to the Clinton spin that Trump is bilked the public for years.

It also represents an opportunity for Trump if indeed Clinton/the media keeps playing this line. It will almost surely come up in the next debate, at which time Trump needs to point blank state that there was nothing controversial, let alone illegal about what happened. The fact that the Clinton campaign and the media are portraying it that way can only mean one of two things.

One possibility is they do not understand even the most basic of tax law, accounting, and general business, and therefore cannot be expected to understand anything about creating jobs. Why would Clinton or the media understand anything about business or the economy, given Clinton has only worked in the public sector and the NYT’s support of failed neoliberal Keynesian economics?

The other possibility is brazen dishonesty, in knowing the average voter takes much better to a simple ‘Trump avoided taxes!’ one liner than the far lengthier, legal and accounting arguments such as what I’ve put forth here.

Furthering the dishonesty angle, there is a potential legal issue here involving the NYT releasing the leaked tax information. The Washington Post discusses it here.

So in a twist of irony, the NYT may have broken the law…to show that Donald Trump followed the law in his tax dealings. And people wonder why the mainstream media is failing.

They’re even bragging about the whole thing. The author of the piece has just written this article, breaking down the events leading to the piece. The way she describes it one could think she had solved the Jimmy Hoffa mystery rather than a data point corroborating an old saga that we already knew. Trump literally wrote a book about this period in his life, The Art of the Comeback.

The fact the leak came from Trump Tower itself is also rather intriguing. Did Trump himself leak the documents, so as to control the narrative, which he is known to do? The next few days should answer that.

Trump could use this saga to his advantage rather easily. It has been public information for decades that Trump had losses in the billions in the early 90s. Yet he is here, richer than ever. Losses happen, especially in business. But to be down on the mat, and then get up and triumph, is America in a nutshell. And this is precisely what Trump is trying to do with the country as a whole. The country is down, and trying to get back on its feet, and then some. Trump has been there, done that.

The indignation over Trump’s honest failures, compared with the silent acceptance of the dishonest enrichment of the Clintons stands as one of the clearest examples of what this election is all about. Because Clinton is on the ‘right side of history’ in terms of social justice nonsense that plagues the nation, her sins are forgiven, while Trump credits are manufactured into sins because of his resistance to the march of social justice.

Reality Doesn’t Care About Feelings, Volume 4 – The Larger Importance of the Machado Saga

Donald Trump further addressed the Alicia Machado saga yesterday with a series of early morning tweets on the matter:

The conventional political wisdom is that Trump stepped in a well laid trap that Hillary Clinton set for him. What he should have done was largely ignored the situation, maybe dealing with it in one abrupt sentence and then pivoting to something else. I think that this is a special case for a few reasons.

First, recall that it was Hillary Clinton who introduced Alicia Machado into the public conscience at the debate:

Hillary Clinton’s candidacy has been more an anti Trump plea than a pro Hillary one. The vast majority of her case has been ‘vote for Clinton because Trump is a sexist bigot.’ The use of Machado in this manner is entirely to buttress that argument. Machado is to be the smoking gun that proves Trump is a sexist, and thus Trump is disqualified.

Yes, in reality this IS side issue. But since Clinton has made such side issues central to her argument, it was necessary for Trump to address it, in my view. Had he let it slide, Clinton would have been able to parade Machado out constantly over the next month or so in an effort to influence the public with her sob story.

Furthermore, Trump is 100% in the right on this issue. For a start, the claim that he called her ‘Miss Piggy’ and ‘Miss Housewife’ are totally unsubstantiated claims. It is only Machado who is pushing that story. The background to the whole thing as follows:

  • Trump owned the Miss Universe pageant, which Machado won in 1996, the year before Trump bought it.
  • Machado then proceeded to gain weight, about 50-60 pounds.
  • The sponsors, and Miss Universe wanted to fire her, because the weight gain was in violation of her contractual obligations 
  • Trump stepped in and saved Machado’s job, by giving her a chance to lose the weight.
  • Trump made a media spectacle about it, in which he joked about his own weight problems, while addressing the serious issue that faces us all in this regard. It is below:

That was it. Now, 20 years later, Clinton has put Machado forth as the star witness in the prosecution of Trump’s sexism.

The problem for Clinton is that the credibility of Machado has now become an issue, and rightly so if she is going to be cast in this role as star witness.

In 1998 Machado allegedly drove a getaway car from a murder scene in Venezuela. She then used her connections to drug dealers to allegedly threaten the life of the judge in the case. Less criminally, she appeared on a Spanish reality show and had sex on camera with another castmate – who was not Bobby Abreu, the baseball player she was engaged to at the time. She also had the child of a Mexican Drug Lord, who is an American citizen by virtue of being born here.

Machado also claimed that because of Trump, she developed an eating disorder that is still with her today. However, in this Washington Post article, she clearly describes her problems with eating before having won the competition, which means it was before she had even met Trump, who did not purchase the pageant until a year later:

“I was anorexic and bulimic, but almost all of us are,” Machado says without so much as a blink. “When I was preparing for Miss Universe, it was an obsession for me to not gain weight. By the time I won, I was actually recovering. But the year leading to it, I didn’t eat at all. And whatever I ate, I threw up. I weighed 116 pounds when I won. I was skeletal.”

In response to all of this being brought up, Machado had this to say in defense:

“He can say whatever he wants to say. I don’t care,” she emphatically stated. “You know, I have my past, of course. Everybody has a past, and I’m not a saint girl, but that is not the point now.”

 

“That moment in Venezuela was wrong, was another speculation about my life because I’m a really famous person in my country because I’m an actress there and in Mexico, too,” she continued. “And he can use whatever he wants to use. The point is, that happened 20 years ago.”

In short, Machado, an individual with a questionable past and shaky moral values, told a story which is uncorroborated, and then told a provable lie which goes to the heart of the very story she is trying to tell. Ye she is being treated like an ‘angel’ as Trump put it his tweet.

While it is true that everyone has a past, most people’s pasts don’t include being involved in murders and judge intimidation. Furthermore, we are actually supposed to absolve her from being involved with a murder and judge intimidation simply because it was 20 years ago. Yet, we are supposed to crucify Donald Trump for allegedly calling a woman fat…20 years ago.

It boggles the mind of anyone with the slightest bit of rationality, which explains why the mainstream media decided to go all in and bat for Clinton/Machado.

The NYT wrote the following about the allegation that Machado appeared in a sex tape:

Ms. Machado appeared in a risqué scene on a reality television show, but fact-checkers have discovered no sex tape.

I’ll allow Paul Joseph Watson to explain why this nonsense stretches credulity.

Even more hilariously, the mainstream media has dug up this video of Trump from 2000:

The video was part of a 2000 Playboy softcore film. This is seemingly the intro sequence or something, I’m not entirely sure. What it shows is Trump welcoming Playboy models to New York City by pouring champagne on a limousine on a public NYC street in broad daylight, everyone fully clothed. And this is being cited as evidence of Trump as an ‘adult film star.’ A Clinton spokesperson said this:

There’s been a lot of talk about sex tapes today, and in a strange turn of events, only one adult film has emerged today, and its star is Donald Trump.

In short:

Knowingly having sex on film which is to be publicly aired = not a sex tape

Pouring champagne on a limousine in a public street, fully clothed = adult film star

The Big Picture

I’ve painstakingly gone through these details to show what a bizarro, upside down clown world we currently live in. As long as you are a person with views outside the politically correct, establishment approved norms, you are subject to having this sort of treatment foisted upon you.

And this is the larger aspect of the Machado saga. The fact that these sort of nonsensical forays into identity politics are a staple of political campaigns is something that needs to be nipped in the bud. While other politicians of lesser fortitude would have allowed themselves to be bullied by these tactics, I commend Trump for standing up to ambushes like these, because at the end of the day they do nothing but insult the intelligence of the average person.

By virtue of Clinton dramatically introducing Machado to the world on a Presidential Debate sage in front of 100 million people, backed by a complicit media which had Machado puff pieces and TV interview spots at the ready, this was always intended to be a big campaign issue. The aim was to turn women away from Trump en masse. If Trump is able to successfully combat this pathetic mode of political attack, he might render it useless in the future, to the benefit of the political discourse of this country generally.

Beyond politics, tactics like this are meant to silence. In the context of who deserves to be president, whether Trump called a woman fat years ago has no relevance. Yet is being presented in order to push the narrative of ‘sexism,’ which in turn is a weapon wielded by leftists in order to silence dissent. In the current climate, all one has to do is utter the word ‘sexist’ or ‘bigot,’ and you win the argument by criminalizing the opposition. Trump exposing the media and Clinton engaging in this intellectually lazy behavior will benefit the country culturally.

That Clinton would even pull this sort of early ‘October Surprise,’ with such a terribly flawed case and terribly flawed ‘victim’ could smack of desperation. But beyond this, for it to work would require female voters to discount the list of women Clinton allegedly intimidated to stay silent about Bill Clinton’s mistreatment of them. It would require female voters to discount the incompetence shown in allowing 4 Americans to die in Benghazi, the corruption and cronyism alleged in the Cinton Foundation and Wall Street speeches, which allowed the Clintons to go from ‘dead broke’ to having a net worth in the hundreds of millions. Female voters would have to discount the incompetence and/or outright criminality involved in deleting emails from a private server which held classified government information, her complicity in thrusting the United States in to foreign war after foreign war costing thousands of lives and creating chaos in the Middle East and an unprecedented migrant crisis, all while accepting money from countries with atrocious records with respect to the treatment of women. Female voters would have to side with a media establishment which blatantly covers for and aids Clinton in her bid for the presidency, because it’s ‘her turn.’

All because Trump may or may not have called a woman Miss Piggy 20 years ago.