Oh man, that was painful. I don’t watch Maddow a ton but am inclined to think of her as a competent political journalist pundit. But this Trump Tax return story was Geraldo Rivera’s freakin’ Capone’s Vault stoopid. She stayed on her soapbox way too long and made the lack of payoff frustrating.
Quite a while beforehand when they started to advertise it. The key words ‘Rachel Maddow’ tipped me off that it wasn’t a big story, and then hearing it was about his 2005 tax returns I knew the story was irrelevant. Some time later I heard that it was a 2 page summary and the obvious conclusion it was leaked by Trump. Clever move, the end result is Rachel Maddow giving Trump a break.
I think that’s what bothers me so much: it seemed empty early on, and Maddow was using it to pontificate about the need for tax returns*, even while it gave Trumpsters some fresh ammo. She seemed to be playing us while she herself was getting played - all of which leaves me a bit cynical about Maddow now.
*thanks; we get it and agree, but that hasn’t changed Trump’s position a whit.
For me I always felt it was a small story, and that Trump should have just released them during the campaign like any candidate in the past. Any commentary would have happened, and then we all would have moved on. By NOT releasing them he has fuel the fire of interest more than is needed.
My personal opinion is that the reason he didn’t release them is he knows his claims of wealth are actually overblown, and finds it humiliating that he is only a billionaire, not a ten-billionaire. Whereas I also believe that 99.999% of people knowing that he is only a billionaire, and not a ten-billionaire, would still be greatly impressed. As with so much, it’s all in his head.
Smoke and mirrors to distract people from the big stories.
She said it was just a 1040 a half hour before the show, so I didn’t go into the show expecting a huge OMG relevation.
Yeah. I mean, at worst, I’m miffed ;). But still, she oversold it. I know, I shouldn’t be the least bit surprised and will get over it.
Honestly, I first read this on my FB feed: “Rachel Maddow says Trump paid 25% in taxes!”
I couldn’t help thinking to myself: “Why in the world is Maddow standing up for Trump?”
And then reading further into the story I realized: “Oh, 25% is supposed to be a BAD thing.”
I thought 25% is fairly high for a billionaire.
My wife insisted that we watch it, even though we gave up on Maddow’s relentlessly repetitious style a long time ago. It was as boring and frustrating as I remember it, leading to a lot of nothing, and it was apparent from the get-go. I do think Trump leaked it, despite his tweet about it being fake news (after the WH confirmed it that it’s real :rolleyes: ).
I think Maddow is really great. She does a deep story for the first 20 minutes of her show almost every night, before the first commercial. There is less fluff in it and less repetition than almost anything on TV.
So she oversold donnies tax return? I’m a little disappointed that they didn’t cover it as a trump leak and talk more about why this would happen. I watched it and wondered what was on the '04 and '06 returns myself. But a cable person selling a show? I’m shocked. If the 1040 wasn’t important think how unimportant this kerfuffle is.
The media is doing what it does best now: distract from the issues and painting donnie as having “won a round” when he is actually malignantly insane.
I lost interest when I heard it was the 2005 tax return.
I think it was worthy of reporting but I’m disappointed that Rachel gave it more attention and hype than it deserved.
I had to share this from salon:
That latter theory was shared by David Cay Johnston, the Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter who provided Maddow with the documents. “It’s entirely possible that Donald sent this to me. It’s a possibility, and it could have been leaked by someone in his direction,” Johnston stated. The fact that the 1040 was labeled “Client Copy” has been cited as lending credence to this hypothesis.
This report basically adds evidence to things that were already suspected; that Trump isn’t as rich as he claims and that, like many very wealthy Americans, he pays a relatively low tax rate. Before the election, these might have been issues but there’s no evidence of illegality here so it doesn’t matter much now.
I don’t think that necessarily follows. The way I see it there are essentially three possibilities:
- Trump or somebody acting for Trump leaked it.
- Somebody in Trump’s business offices leaked it without Trump’s permission.
- Somebody in the government leaked it without Trump’s permission.
Either of the first two would have had access to a client copy. And if it was a disgruntled IRS employee or somebody like that, they could presumably have mislabled it as a client copy to throw off any investigators.
I didn’t need to watch the segment. The initial tweet was vague enough to make it clear that it was sensationalism.
Swing and a miss, Rachel.
Geraldo Rivera’s freakin’ Capone’s Vault stoopid. 
Post of the day!
Yes, that was my thought, also. I assume Maddow wanted/needed a ratings boost.
It wasn’t much of a story, but her intro about Russian ties was a good primer for those who haven’t been following RussiaGate
Also, I think it will generate enough buzz to perhaps dredge up more leaks.
There is a link in a Pit thread of her talking about The Russian Connection and the Republican convention. As I watched that clip I muttered probably a half dozen times: Get to the freaking point already. Even though I tend to agree with her, and appreciate her tenacity, it ain’t easy to hear her report something/drag something out.
Print media is broadband into your brain. Visual/audio media are dial up. Maddow is carrier pigeon.
Yes I need this delivered in the same way as my McDonalds happy meal. Investigative journalism always works best that way.
Just watch the first 20 minutes some time (usually no ads til 9:20) and tell me she isn’t the one who’s covering the most important stories consistently; While at the same time taking grief as if she’s just a leftie analog to Fox, by self styled homemade media pundits.