CHARLIE KIRK (HOST): Now mind you, The New York Times did not disclose any of these documents throughout their piece. We are fully trusting The New York Times that what they say here is true. That's a very dangerous presupposition.
None of the conservative media seems to be taking the bait at all whatsoever. I mean, none of The Daily Caller, Breitbart, or Fox News for good reason is indulging whatsoever in this attempt to destroy President Donald Trump.
So I have a couple questions about this entire tax issue with President Trump.
First of all, I want to know who leaked these. I want to know. I want to know who gave these tax returns to The New York Times. I put on Twitter and it has gone absolutely viral with 38,000 retweets "Who leaked Trump's tax returns?" Did you know according to 26 US Code 7213, it makes it illegal to disclose unauthorized information including tax returns? If true, there should be felony charges leveled. Now the Democrats are going out of their way, including Brian Stelter, to try to say The New York Times said that the person who gave over these tax returns had legal access to the information. So I read this in The New York Times and to an untrained eye, to someone who doesn't deal with the activist media on a daily basis -- such as I do every single day -- I said, I read it and said that reads really funny. The people who shared this had legal access to this information, I said, but it doesn't say if it was legal to give it to The New York Times.
There are lots of people that have legal access to your information, and it's illegal to share that information. For example, doctors. Doctors aren't allowed to share information they have about you. Lawyers. They're not allowed to share information about you. The entire IRS has all of your personal information, including your social security number, all of your financial information. And it is illegal to share that information and make it public.
So The New York Times probably illegally obtained these. And is it also illegal to report on them? That remains to be seen. There's legal opinions on both sides.