NY Times trying to undermine Trump by releasing tax returns: Napolitano

Channel: Fox Business
Published: 05/08/2019 06:38 PM

Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano on the controversy over President Trump's tax practices from 1985 to 1994. FOX Business Network (FBN) is a financial news channel delivering real-time information across all platforms that impact both Main Street and Wall Street. Headquar...

[ music ], alright bye! Now you have got wind of this new york times report white, a lengthy one outlining of the president's tax returns technically transcripts, going from 1985 to around 1994, during which time donald trump, racked up about 1. 17 billion dollars in losses that helped have him to write off Over the course of 10 years to the point that he didn't have to pay any taxes and eight of ...
hose ten years now, the administration is saying that this is a highly inaccurate, fake news hit job. But whatever your personal points, we want to get to the laws of accounting, not only what they are now, but but what what they were back in the 80sin, the early 90s, when this was going on and the size of the assets that we're talking about here. In the real estate empire and the casino empire that was and remains, donald trump liberty file hosts on fox nation judge, editor bala tano says that the president's legal defense on this is accurate. He wasn't doing anything untoward right correct. I mean what the president was doing. What donald trump private citizen was doing at the time was creative accounting, which he would have been foolish, not to do so. If he made an investment, let's say bought a hotel for 200 million dollars and he had to get rid of it. He had to pay off thedebt that he used to acquire the hotel and it could only sell it for 50 million dollars. He can take that 150 million dollar loss and spread it out against other income. Coming to him. He would be crazy not to do that.

That was written in the tax law to enable people like donald trump, to engage in speculation to buy and sell businesses, because in the act of buying and selling he's employing a lot of people and he's energizing the economy. In his case, the numbers are enormous, truly enormous, but we know he was audited. We know the irs approved it. We know it's consistent with the law, so why is it a headline inthe new york times? Because the new york times wants to try and undermine him with his base, which is unaccustomed to numbers of that magnitude, but didn't a lot of people are no it i'm not getting aspersions on the legality of that. It is perfectly legal. You have huge losses. You could write them more for the course of yours. They don't let you do it in the very first year, but they let you spread it out right, but it does indicate that maybe the much celebrated business acumen wasn't there that he that he failed of with a narrow line filled with a casino that he failed With the new jersey generals, football team as ifright, and i could go on to say, hotels and retail sites now he's perfectly within his rights and legal rights and accounting accuracy to pile up those losses in excess. As i said of 1 billion dollars and write him off of the course so the new york times piece is a political piece, because they're saying he did not accurately describe his own success. But it was accurate from the irs perspective and if you know about success in real estate and he dominated real estate commercial, real estate in new york for a generation - that's what you have. You have ups and downs. You have good years and bad years.

Yet ten rough years in the yearsfollowing that top of his game, he made a lot of money and i personally paid a lot of taxes. Alright, so any did indeed we don't know the degree to which it was. I mean they're trying to get right now in the house six years worth of tax returns the last six years. They would be apparently interesting because of this issue of whether he was colluding with the russians. So how did the new york times get this stuff? Well, if you read the article, they say it was shared with them by someone who had legal access to it. No one who had legal access to it have the legal authority to share it with themedia times has protected new york times against sullivan and new york times. Pentagon papers case protects the new york times as the publisher. It does not protect the thief who had access to it and gave it to the well. How did they get their hands on that? Remember that during the 2016 campaign, well that they said it showed up in the mail? No, i looked at that. That appeared to be a real tax return that was signed by president trump, like a page right and and his then-wife. What the new york times claims it has is not the actual tax returns, but the summaries of his returns that the irs prepares when you are takingdeductions a year after year after year, from the same loss and you file for the deduction, they have to go back And examine the loss and make sure it was a real loss, so they had these summaries. Somebody got their hands on those summaries and shared them within a year.

Why don't you think it's a moot point now because he's never gon na release them voluntarily um. He ever believes detectives everything you're right. It is legal. I'Ve talked to accountants right, i've taken some accounting classes, so i think i'm an expert, but it is nothing really illegal or wacky going on here. What the what i do notice, though working backwards, is the numbers, because younever tell someone's worth from a tax return right, there's a reference there in one year where he made 50 through me and an interest, i think in 1987 and you're doing that backward if you've Made that much an interest, it had to be an investment worth at least half a billion right now, so leaving that aside, it may be. It calls into question that he wasn't as rich as he said. He was but bottom line. He was rich right and he was rich and his his wealth was addressed with the irs, with perfect consistency with the law, and that's really all anybody should be concerned about he could put whatever spin. He wants politically onit, but the implication in the new york times. Article was there's something untoward here yeah i haven't seen the irs documents. The only thing i saw is the time which are still in place today correct huh, and that's it yes, so when he says in his tweet and sometimes the streets can sting as you know, but when he says in his tweet this is fake. This is that news word newsworthy, he's right, it's newsworthy, because the the number is enormous, but the behavior was perfectly lawful and i would have been foolish not to have done what he did.

I will say that so whether you want to put politics of this or not, there's alot more obsession with the president's taxes and what he paid and to whom he paid yeah. He didn't pay right. Ah, then, there is to the tax cuts that that he helped orchestrate right. Who am i yeah modest country anchor wait a minute in new jersey. They were tax increase. Thank you for reminding me that, like fellow hardened state,.

Watch Next