Dad, music, soul, listening, feeling, thinking, learning, being, doing.
560 stories

Trumps ‘leaked’ 2005 Tax form 1040 – What you need to know.

1 Share

If it looks like a turd, smells like a turd… it’s a turd.

NOTE : This post has updates at the bottom.

Well, well, well. Why do the craziest things keep happening regarding issues surrounding Donald Trump, just at the right time? Take for example the latest stunning revelation, his ‘leaked’ 2005 1040 tax form. Well I’ve got a few thoughts on this, but first I’ll present you with some non-alternative facts.

Sometime in recent days Donald Trumps 1040 form (partial) appeared in Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter and tax expert David Cay Johnston’s snail-mailbox at his home address. Here’s what he received:

It’s worth noting this document does NOT include Trumps 2005 schedule – which would show exactly where he’s getting money from, charitable donations and so on. It’s a partial record, for a single year, 2005.

So here’s the thing

Donald Trump married Melania Knaus in 2005. She had been a permanent resident since 2001. She became a US citizen in 2006. Part of the US naturalization checklist REQUIRES either the last 5 years tax returns if you are single OR the last 3 years tax returns if you are married to a US citizen, which would be in Melania’s case means she needed to provide:

  • For 2003 her single filing…
  • For 2004 her single filing…
  • For 2005 her joint filing with Donald Trump.

Melania’s citizenship depended on a squeaky clean joint tax filing in 2005.

Read that again – Melania’s citizenship depended on a squeaky clean joint tax filing in 2005.

Now, a closer look at the document shows that on page one, it is a joint filing, in 2005 and ‘Melanija Knavs’ – her birth name in her native Slovenian is listed as per below:

Another interesting point to note is that on page two of the document we can clearly see a ‘CLIENT COPY’ stamp as per below:

So far I have presented verifiable facts.

Now let’s get to my opinion, and probably yours too. ‘CLIENT COPY’ – this means it had to come from Trump himself (he’s the client), or his accountant, lawyer, bank – basically somebody VERY close to him, which also means if he really wanted to find out who it was who ‘leaked’ it, it wouldn’t exactly be difficult for him, maybe even as simple as looking at a mirror.

As I said Melania’s citizenship depended on a squeaky clean join tax filing in 2005. This is why Trump, in my humble opinion, leaked his own (partial) 2005 1040 form: It was the only year he was forced to play by the rules.

This was a clear attempt to game the US public and media, distract from all the other shit that’s going on, like the Health Care Bill fiasco, the Russia connections that are closing in and his insane unfounded claims of being ‘wiretapped’ by Obama. This also happens to  make him look as awesome as possible to his base who are now happily crowing:

“Trump made $150 Million. Trump paid $38 million taxes” – where’s the downside?

Here’s the thing, if this was a ‘leak’ by a ‘concerned 3rd party’ there’s no way it would be so beneficial to Trump. It’s not like Trump isn’t historically famous for ‘leaking’ information about himself under fake name, see the Miller/Barron phone calls to journalists in the 80’s, that were in fact Trump himself.

Why this year? Why partial? Why now? Ask yourself, what are the circumstances that would lead someone to getting a only single year of taxes, likely the only year that makes him seem almost reasonable…and not the complete set of documents?

It’s also worth noting that the White House had a perfectly worded, grammatically correct statement with no typos out to the media BEFORE Maddow did her show – which has to be a first. The statement also confirmed the numbers BEFORE Maddows 9PM show where she aired them, up till then nobody knew what they were. As per below:

But yet, Trump, who has to keep up the crazy appearance and the facade, has come out on Twitter since I started this article to claim it’s all ‘fake news’. Lolwut? As per below:

WHATTTT??? You confirmed the numbers in your official statement BEFORE the numbers were aired by Maddow, you fucking nimrod.

Trumps feeling the pressure. This whole bullshittery was engineered by him to placate himself to his base regarding his tax returns. And they’ll swallow it whole and run with it, meanwhile there’s others, myself included, who’ll look at what he’s really doing, which is, in short, conning, swindling, and raping America.

This ruse is going to backfire. It’s served only to fan the flames, and the only way he can extinguish them is to go ahead and release the rest of his taxes. But he won’t, this is clearly a man with something to hide.

I’ll ask again. How many coincidences does it take to make a fact?

Just my 2 cents.


PS: If anyone out there has any more Trump Tax Returns – please don’t hesitate to microwave them to me.


UPDATE March 16 2017

Turns out, the letter David Cay Johnston received in his snail-mailbox, which contained Trumps 1040 form was mailed from Westchester, on the same weekend the Trump family happened to be there. Probably just another coincidence.

….And here’s an article showing Trump’s family was in Westchester at the same time.


The post Trumps ‘leaked’ 2005 Tax form 1040 – What you need to know. appeared first on JestersCourt.

Read the whole story
3 days ago
New Hampshire
Share this story

Why The Press Is Hated...

1 Comment

Authored by Eric Peters via,

The press wonders – or pretends to wonder – why it’s held in contempt by more than just a small handful of  people. Maybe the pressies should read what they publish.

The other day, Automotive News published the following:

“Dozens of U.S. cities are willing to buy $10 billion of electric cars and trucks to show skeptical automakers there’s demand for low-emissions vehicles, just as President Trump seeks to review pollution standards the industry opposes.”

This slurry of dishonest or simply idiotic “reporting” is stupendously revealing – all the more so because it is representative of the norm. Where to begin?

Let’s work from the back, since the worst lie – and that is exactly the correct word – squats toward the end of this vile dreck:

“…to review the pollution standards the industry opposes.”

Utter falsehood. I mean, other than the industry opposing part. Which of course is portrayed as all-but-demonic, with sulfurous undertones that practically waft off the page.

The lie worthy of Dr. Goebbels at his best, though, is this business about carbon dioxide being a “pollutant.” In which case – uh oh! – it is time to put giant cones on top of volcanoes and catalytically converting muzzles on cows and for that matter us, too. Carbon dioxide is a “pollutant” in the same way that di-hydrogen monoxide (water) is a “pollutant.”

It does not foul the air. Even slightly.

It does not cause cancer or respiratory problems or acid rain.

Or even acne.

The Automotive News story is despicable because it purveys without comment or qualifier the package-dealing of an inert, non-reactive gas – C02 – with the byproducts of internal combustion engines that do foul the air, contribute to the formation of smog, irritate people’s lungs, create public health problems and cause acid rain.

Those compounds which are pollutants, properly (scientifically) speaking.

Carbon dioxide is a natural constituent component of the atmosphere, like water vapor and nitrogen and oxygen. To characterize C02 as a “pollutant” is either a titanic imbecility or a purposeful attempt to mislead.

It is of a piece with the progagandizing the media performed for the government when it decided it was time to conflate those who (so they said) attacked America on 9/11 with the Iraqi government. You may recall. One minute, it was al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Then – as if a batch fax had been sent to every media organ in the country – it was non-stop Saddam. Just as C02 isn’t a “pollutant,” Saddam didn’t attack America. But the press did its best to purposefully confuse the issue, aiding and abetting a Nuremburg-worthy high crime – aggressive war – that went unpunished. Reichsmarschall Goring is smiling cynically, somewhere above . . . or below.

The new Fake News is that carbon dioxide is something like carbon monoxide, or unburned hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen, or particulates – a danger that must be regulated and controlled. Not only is the untrue (see above) but unlike the actually harmful compounds classified (accurately) as pollutants, carbon dioxide can’t be “cleaned up” because of course it’s not “dirty” to begin with. The only thing that can be done – here it comes – is to reduce the volume produced and the only known way to do that is to . . . burn less fuel.

In other words, it’s a fuel efficiency fatwa masquerading as an anti-pollution measure. And the object is not to increase fuel efficiency. It is to reduce the size of engines (and so, cars) and make them expensive – so that fewer people can afford to buy them. This is not spoken of openly, but it is the end goal. It must be; a single fool or demagogue could be dismissed as aberrant; this is systematic, organized.

The government – which is a bunch of people – calculated, drew up ad then decreed (in the waning days of Obama’s presidency, knowing his successor might be  . . . skeptical)  that henceforth carbon dioxide would be considered a ”pollutant.”

The media lapdogged that up. No “excuse me, but…”


Just willing, complicit, lazy regurgitation. Or something much worse . . .

The reaction of anyone reading the Automotive News pabulum who is in possession of junior high school-level chemistry knowledge will – rightly – be one of outrage. Unfortunately – deliberately – a working majority of the public is not in possession of junior high school-level knowledge of chemistry.

Next item up for dissection:

“Dozens of U.S. cities are willing to buy $10 billion of electric cars and trucks to show skeptical automakers there’s a demand for low-emissions vehicles.”

God, my teeth ache.

Firstly, it’s not not “dozens of cities” who will be buying these force-produced electric Edsels. It is the taxpayers of these cities who will be forced to buy them (but not own them) via the extorted funds they are compelled to provide, so that government workers can drive around in the electric Edsels.


This isn’t supply and demand, market forces. It is make-work and wealth transfer. To characterize it as “demand for low-emissions vehicles” is another despicable upchuck of putrefying propaganda that depends upon the stupefaction (or enstupidation) of the reader, who will only allow the morsel to pass by if he is utterly in the dark about basic economic laws.

And “low emissions”?


How many times must this be whack-a-moled? Electric vehicles do produce emissions, just not at the tailpipe. Does the source of pollution matter? Or just that it is produced?

Bingo, if you picked the latter.

First of all, the raw materials necessary to make the hundreds of pounds of batteries per electric car are not gently taken from Gaia’s willing bosom – and the batteries themselves are mini-Chernobyls of toxic waste. Oh, but they’ll be recycled! Except when they’re not. What then? Out here in The Woods, decrepit olds cars abound, left to rot in the backyard. The same fate awaits even shiny six figure Teslas. Which – one day – will be paint-blotched old hoopties left to rot – and leak – in someone’s back yard. Only instead of one roughly 45 pound led acid battery leaching into the earf, it’ll be 400-plus pounds of life-unfriendly compounds.

Does anyone care? Shouldn’t “environmentalists”?

Electric cars, by the way, also produce C02. In fact, they produce more “climate changing” C02 than a conventional car. Not at the tailpipe, perhaps.

At the smokestack.

At the “tailpipe” of the coal and oil-fired utility plants that generate the electricity which powers electric cars. If hundreds of thousands – if millions – of these electric cars are put into circulation, the demand on the grid will be great and the output of C02 even higher.

What then?

The press does not ask such questions. Instead:

“Demonstrating demand” . . . so reads the subhead in the Automotive News propaganda piece.

And yes, again, propaganda.

Words matter. Using certain words conveys a certain meaning. People who deal in words professionally know this, instinctively. As the hawk knows how to dive.

“Demonstrating demand” is a statement, as if of fact, that an entirely fictitious and fraudulent thing is the same thing as the real thing.

Government buying things isn’t “demand” anymore than one is a “customer” of the IRS.

Whatever “demand” is created, is artificial – dependent on wealth transfer, on the coercive power of the government. It is the same sort of “demand” that built the Volga canal in Stalin’s Soviet Union.

Automotive News quotes – without comment – a statement made by a Seattle bureaucrat named Chris Bast, who is a “climate and transportation policy adviser” to the city of Seattle:

“If you build it, we will buy it.”

He means: If the government forces car companies to build electric cars, the government will force taxpayers to buy them. This, of course, is not translated thusly.

The loathsome “news” article concludes:

“Tailpipe fumes (my italics) are crucial in the fight to stop global warming.”

The illiteracy is almost as striking as the dishonesty – or the imbecility, you decide which.

Note the conflation – the inert, non-reactive gas (C02) is now a fume. And it is “crucial” in “the fight to stop global warming.”

Not the galloping unchecked assumptions; the blithe acceptance, as of gravitation, of the political “science” of “global warming.”

The awful construction would be enough to make my teeth feel loose. But the oily proselytizing is just too much.

And they ask me why I drink . . . .

Read the whole story
8 days ago
Wow. Just, Wow.
New Hampshire
Share this story

Hillary Ally Offers $5 Million Reward For Trump's "Complete, Legally Obtained Tax Returns"

1 Comment

Following last night's embarrassing and widely mocked 'leak' of Trump's 2005 tax return by "Fake News" MSNBC, which seemingly only served to prove that Trump made a lot of money and paid a lot of taxes, long-time Hillary ally David Brock has offered a $5 million reward for anyone who can deliver his "complete, legally obtained tax returns."

"More questions than answers tonight. I'm offering a $5m reward to anyone with Trump's complete, legally obtained tax returns."


Which, among other things, begs the obvious question of exactly how someone goes about "legally obtaining" stolen, private documents.

For those you not familiar with Brock, he's a long-time Clinton operative and founder of the liberal media "watchdog" group Media Matters for America.  As we noted back in October (see "Podesta Emails Reveal Illegal Coordination With David Brock Super PAC"), Podesta's leaked emails seemingly revealed that Brock may have violated Federal election laws by openly using his "Correct The Record" Super PAC to directly coordinate with the Clinton campaign...which we believe is technically a felony.

Super PAC


As we noted last night, the White House released the following statement about Trump's newly leaked 2005 taxes:

You know you are desperate for ratings when you are willing to violate the law to push a story about two pages of tax returns from over a decade ago.


Before being elected President, Mr. Trump was one of the most successful businessmen in the world with a responsibility to his company, his family and his employees to pay no more tax than legally required. That being said, Mr. Trump paid $38 million dollars even after taking into account large scale depreciation for construction, on an income of more than $150 million dollars, as well as paying tens of millions of dollars in other taxes such as sales and excise taxes and employment taxes and this illegally published return proves just that.


Despite this substantial income figure and tax paid, it is totally illegal to steal and publish tax returns.


The dishonest media can continue to make this part of their agenda, while the President will focus on his, which includes tax reform that will benefit all Americans.

And Trump continued to mock MSNBC this morning via twitter.

Read the whole story
13 days ago
Just have to find Trump's price I guess.
New Hampshire
Share this story

screenshotsofdespair: Some of the best screenshots of despair...

1 Share


Some of the best screenshots of despair are irl.

Read the whole story
17 days ago
New Hampshire
Share this story


1 Comment


Read the whole story
17 days ago
New Hampshire
Share this story

Review Copies of Economism

1 Share

By James Kwak

If you teach introductory economics or introductory micro, at either the high school or university level, and you’re interested in possibly using Economism in your class, let me know and I’ll send you a (free) review copy. Just email me at from your school account and let me know your shipping address, and I’ll order a copy for you.

Quick summary: The central theme of Economism is that some of the basic models taught in “Economics 101” have acquired disproportionate influence in contemporary society and are routinely and systematically misapplied to important policy questions. The problem is not that introductory models are wrong, but that too many people forget their limitations and believe that their simple conclusions can be reflexively applied to the real world. As Paul Samuelson said in the first edition of his textbook, the idea that “any interference with free competition by government was almost certain to be injurious … is all that some of our leading citizens remember, 30 years later, of their college course in economics.” In chapters on labor markets, taxes, trade, and other topics, Economism first walks through the implications of introductory models before explaining how a richer understanding of economic reality, including empirical research, teaches different and more interesting lessons.

If you worry that the typical first-year curriculum produces too many students who think unregulated markets are the answer to every problem, Economism may be the antidote you need. In the Financial Times, Martin Sandbu wrote, “Economics lecturers, take note: include [Economism] on your syllabus and set aside ample time to discuss its arguments in class.” The book has also received praise from many economists including Ian Ayres (Yale Law School), Jared Bernstein (former chief economic adviser to Vice President Joe Biden), Heather Boushey (chief economist, Washington Center for Equitable Growth), Simon Johnson (MIT Sloan; former chief economist, IMF; and my frequent co-author), Dani Rodrik (Harvard), and Noah Smith (Bloomberg View).

For more about the book, you can visit economism.netThe Atlantic also published an excerpt. (It’s basically the first half of the labor market chapter, on the minimum wage; the second half of that chapter deals with the compensation of very high earners.) And again, email me if you want a review copy.

[Note: I’m not doing this for the money. I have donated all of my royalties from 13 BankersWhite House Burning, and Economism to charitable organizations. I can’t anticipate my financial situation for the rest of my life, but I will donate all royalties from Economism for at least the next five years.]

Read the whole story
22 days ago
New Hampshire
Share this story
Next Page of Stories