> tax returns are illegally obtained and released about Trump The NY Times did nothing illegal.[0] The person who provided the tax return (actually one page of

> tax returns are illegally obtained and released about Trump The NY Times did nothing illegal.[0] The person who provided the tax return (actually one page of a return, afaik) might have broken the law; we don't know. There are rumors that it was Marla Maples, his wife at the time, in which case their joint tax return was hers as much as his, and hers to release (unless there's some rule preventing one spouse releasing a joint return without the other's permission). Another major difference is that the NY Times carefully vetted the tax return to make sure it was accurate; they found and talked to Trump's accountant at the time, used other information to corroborate it, and gave Trump an opportunity to respond. Wikileaks, in contrast, publishes information without any vetting, making them a tool for lies and propaganda campaigns. > we should ignore the content How do you know it's accurate? Certainly, an anonymous Internet source is not at all credible, many people have motives to (and many actually do) spread lies and falsify documents during a political campaign, and Russian intelligence, which has a track record of such things[1] and is not at all a credible source, is very likely is behind the theft of the information.[2] ---- [0] https://concurringopinions.com/archives/2016/10/fan-125-1-first-amendment-news-10-first-amendment-experts-comment-on-legality-of-nyt-release-of-trumps-tax-returns.html https://concurringopinions.com/archives/2016/10/fan-125-1-fi... [1] http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-russia-security-usa-idUKKCN12D13O http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-russia-security-usa-idUKKCN... [2] http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/13/politics/russia-us-election/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/13/politics/russia-us-election/in...