t was supposed to be the story that destroyed the Trump campaign. It won’t. In fact, the New York Times bungled it so badly, they may have helped him.
There are two big takeaways the NY Times and Democrats hope people take away from their “bombshell” report on President Trump’s leaked tax returns. First and foremost, they want voters to believe he didn’t pay much in taxes even though they buried massive tax bills around 4,000 words into their novella. Second, they were able to mention “Russia” a few times, though they acknowledge that they didn’t discover anything nefarious in his dealings with them. Of course, they didn’t acknowledge that into near the bottom of the article.
The ballyhooed NY Times exposé article is a giant nothingburger. There is no telling how much they paid to get the thousands of pages, nor how many thousands of man-hours they used to comb through looking for dirt, but one thing is certain: They paid enough to want to blow it up. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have spent so much extra time trying and energy trying to craft the hit piece they released. It didn’t have any bombshells in it, so they had to manufacture them.
To tax-code-junkies, this reveals a man and an organization that knew what they were doing. To economists, it showed that the American tax mechanism needed a revamp, which it got in 2018 thanks to the Republican Congress and President Trump. To some voters, it reaffirms their biases; supporters will appreciate how smart their President is and detractors will believe he cheated the system. To the vast, vast majority of Americans, it’s meaningless. It’s a 10,000 gibberish words that failed to deliver any tangible fireworks.
One thing we know for sure is why the President has been so opposed to his tax returns being released. It wasn’t because of any foreign connections that could prove he’s “owned” by Russia or anyone else. It wasn’t because he isn’t as rich as he claims, as tax returns show nothing of networth. But it demonstrates perceived losses to a populace that is largely unfamiliar with how taxes and large deductions work. That was the concern all along. He and his campaign team felt the average American wouldn’t be able to understand the complexities of billions of dollars of profits and losses balancing out, and the NY Times article proves his point.