All Episodes Discussion: 2017 Season

[General Days]

19 minutes ago, clb1016 said:

It's stamped on page 2 by the filer's signature line.

Thanks, clb1016. I didn't look at the docs online. Did Maddow or Johnston mention it on the air, though, or did people just notice? I feel like that's a talking point that should be hit hard.

[clb1016]

5 minutes ago, General Days said:

Thanks, clb1016. I didn't look at the docs online. Did Maddow or Johnston mention it on the air, though, or did people just notice? I feel like that's a talking point that should be hit hard.

Sorry, but I can't answer because I was only switching to TRMS during commercial breaks from This Is Us.  We've seen her do lengthy teasers before (e.g., for Kurt Eichenwald's stories during the campaign) and I just wasn't in the mood for sitting through that again.

[General Days]

5 minutes ago, clb1016 said:

Sorry, but I can't answer because I was only switching to TRMS during commercial breaks from This Is Us.  We've seen her do lengthy teasers before (e.g., for Kurt Eichenwald's stories during the campaign) and I just wasn't in the mood for sitting through that again.

I hear ya. That's why I was working on something else while the show was just background noise. I think I'm media-jaded at this point, because I wasn't disappointed by the tax reveal, because I didn't expect it to be more than a drip. 

If anyone knows if Rachel or Johnston actually noted on air that the form was a client copy, please let me know. 

[Hanahope]

So yes, while only have 2 pages was a disappointment, there were some tidbits of important information.

First, there was the topic that his paid tax was virtually all due to the alternative minimum tax, which trump wants to eliminate.  without the alternative minimum tax, trump would have only paid $5 million, rather than $38 million, i.e. 5% tax instead of 24%.

Second, it noted that people that are multi-millionaires pay the same percentage of taxes of those that make significantly less.  The example used was the interviewees $400,000.  while yes, that's still a goodly sum, that 24% is also what people pay that make even less than that.  The point is that people who are multi-millionaires, they should pay an even higher tax.

And of course, there's still the questions about the sources of trump's income, which isn't set forth in just those two pages and show how much digging still needs to be done, and the pressure to release the full tax returns shouldn't let up.

[ahisma]

I don't remember that they mentioned it, but they did mention that there are copies of his taxes all over the place. If he submitted a copy for a loan or a license or anything else, it would be a copy of his own record, that said "client copy." It only means that the one Johnston got didn't come from the IRS or from DT's accountant. 

Quote

It's quite likely Trump had his people leak these two pages to distract from the Russia story, KAC's espionage microwaves manipulation angle, and Russia Russia Russia.

Well, that was a failure, then, since Rachel used it to spend 20 minutes explaining why getting full tax info is so important, because Russia Russia Russia.

[teddysmom]

Quote

f anyone knows if Rachel or Johnston actually noted on air that the form was a client copy, please let me know

She did. She mentioned it and then showed the line where it's stamped "Client copy". 

The internet is bashing her for how she presented the returns and handled the show. Apparently no one has ever watched an episode of Rachel Maddow show before. 

She was trying to put the tax return stuff in context for people who wonder why Presidents should release them, and as to why Trump refused, detailing his fondness for Russian oligarchs and owing huge sums of money to foreign gov't run banks. 

I would bet money he had this leaked. He picked a return that wouldn't show anything too terrible, and only showed the first two pages of a personal return with no schedules for loans, detailed business income etc. 

[The Real Real]

13 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

I had a feeling from that long lead-in, this might not necessarily be something earth-shattering.  It's interesting, but it isn't necessarily earth-shattering.  What's weird to me, is him admitting it's true.  WTF?  Still drip, drip, drip.  GAH!!

You know, Rach said last week, in one of her sign-off chats with LOD, that she was glad Trump never singled her out by name to insult (as LOD has pointed out many times Trump has done to him).  Will Trump now mention Rach?  Hmmmm.

I'm usually annoyed by her lead-ins, but I liked this one.  She was basically summing up what she's been talking about for the past few weeks & why it's so vitally important for EVERY American to see those damn tax returns.  It was kinda like Rach was answering back the vile Smellyanne when she oh-so-casually said nobody was interested in seeing his tax returns.  Really, Smellyanne?  Fuck, no!!!

^^^^^^ This^^^^^^ for those who aren't up on why it's  so important to see those returns!

[attica]

I disagree with Paskin et al that this was a Geraldo moment. Rachel knew she'd have All the Eyeballs on her, and she used the A block to read Trump for filth for everybody. Yes, 2 pages of an 11 year old doc is kind of small potatoes, but the hint that there is plenty more to be had ("SendittoRachel dot com!") is an excellent bit of pot-stirring. Or tree-shaking, whichever metaphor you like. Even though it would not at all surprise me if der orangenfuhrer leaked it himself.

Aww, and both DCJ's site and Maddowblog overloaded! Yay!

I could have done without Bechloss. I love him, but I wanted somebody numbers-wonkier than him. 

Special mention should go to the contempt with which RM corrected the tweet's accusation. "Yeah, this is totally not illegal [you dumb orange shit]."

[Keepitmoving]

4 hours ago, stormy said:

Rachel got some attention on Morning Joe this morning.

Unfortunately, Mark Halperin thinks this two page of nothingness made trump look good.  But the other MJ panelists debunked that and called bullshit.

Which is why the Trump camp leaked it, and I cannot be convince otherwise that they are the ones who sent it. To folks who don't know much and aren't overthinking any of this, his tax return revealed nothing suspect at all. There was no bombshell, and that's what folks were prepared for, at least some kind of hint of a connection to Russia. So I suggest that unless Rachel can somehow connect his tax returns with Russian thugs where it's plain for the dumbest of people to see, well, don't bother.

Edited March 15, 2017 by Keepitmoving

[ScoobieDoobs]

Well, the returns don't show anything earth-shattering.  BUT Rach was able to get an important point across -- that is, why it's so essential for him to release his taxes.  AND he showed us how easily he can do it.  And that his excuse for not doing it is pure bullshit.

I liked Rach's reaction on LOD (right after her show) to moron/idiot Don Jr.'s dumb tweet.  She laughed.  The guy is a fuckin' fool.  But then so is his father.  Nothing Rach did was illegal.  And calling this fake news was pretty stupid -- especially considering that he confirmed the tax forms Rach had were real.

[teddysmom]

Quote

Nothing Rach did was illegal.  

Like MSNBC's attorneys weren't all over this before she ever tweeted it would be on the show.  Notice how careful they were not to show anything on the return but numbers pulled out and the "client copy" stamp at the bottom. 

[ScoobieDoobs]

I'm waiting for him to insult Rach in one of his clueless idiotic tweets.  Or did he leave that for moron Don Jr. to do?  He just refered to Johnston as someone nobody has ever heard of.  Uh, wrong, you fool!  Johnston wrote a well-known & well received book on Trump last year & he was a reporter for NYT.  Just like his accusation of this being fake news was dead wrong.

[clb1016]

42 minutes ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

I'm waiting for him to insult Rach in one of his clueless idiotic tweets.  Or did he leave that for moron Don Jr. to do?  He just refered to Johnston as someone nobody has ever heard of.  Uh, wrong, you fool!  Johnston wrote a well-known & well received book on Trump last year & he was a reporter for NYT.  Just like his accusation of this being fake news was dead wrong.

Johnston has also won a Pulitzer for reporting.

Edited March 15, 2017 by clb1016

[kimaken]

2 hours ago, attica said:

I disagree with Paskin et al that this was a Geraldo moment. Rachel knew she'd have All the Eyeballs on her, and she used the A block to read Trump for filth for everybody. Yes, 2 pages of an 11 year old doc is kind of small potatoes, but the hint that there is plenty more to be had ("SendittoRachel dot com!") is an excellent bit of pot-stirring. Or tree-shaking, whichever metaphor you like. Even though it would not at all surprise me if der orangenfuhrer leaked it himself.

Aww, and both DCJ's site and Maddowblog overloaded! Yay!

I could have done without Bechloss. I love him, but I wanted somebody numbers-wonkier than him. 

Special mention should go to the contempt with which RM corrected the tweet's accusation. "Yeah, this is totally not illegal [you dumb orange shit]."

I agree that although this particular segment wasn't a huge bombshell, information was gleaned, but even better, Rachel got the word out that people who may have copies of any trump returns (that he had to give for business dealings) CAN share them with Rachel and/or that tax reporter, Johnston. Maybe there will be a future bombshell in the next month or so!

[Sharpie66]

Rachel Maddow Is Probably Safe for Disclosing Donald Trump's Taxes, But...

[Ohwell]

So happy that Rachel got hoist by her own petard.  The constant yapping and yapping -- and the smugness and self-satisfaction -- before getting to the damn point blew up in her face. 

[Medicine Crow]

I think Rachel tries really hard to bring issues to the light & I'm sorry she "got bit" by this.

[General Days]

4 hours ago, Ohwell said:

So happy that Rachel got hoist by her own petard.  The constant yapping and yapping -- and the smugness and self-satisfaction -- before getting to the damn point blew up in her face. 

I don't see it that way, at all. She teased that she had some tax returns. She later tweeted which year she had. She presented it and was factual. Are facts the petard, now? 

4 hours ago, Medicine Crow said:

I think Rachel tries really hard to bring issues to the light & I'm sorry she "got bit" by this.

I would be sorry, but I don't even think she got bit, except by those looking to bite. She did her job the way she always does. 

[EyewatchTV211]

[attica]

I was amused to see the envelope that DCJ received with the tax returns. The postmark had three digits, 105. Which just so happen to be the first three digits of the zip code for Briarcliff Manor, which just so happens to be the home of Trump National Golf Club. 

Neal Katyal went to Georgetown Law. Talking smack about Yale! 

[Keepitmoving]

34 minutes ago, General Days said:

I don't see it that way, at all. She teased that she had some tax returns. She later tweeted which year she had. She presented it and was factual. Are facts the petard, now? 

I would be sorry, but I don't even think she got bit, except by those looking to bite. She did her job the way she always does. 

Yeah, and based on her follow-up tonight, I'd agree.

Edited March 16, 2017 by Keepitmoving

[ktwo]

 I hesitate to post this, but I love Rachel and I love Colbert, and if you love them both too, you need to see the first 10 minutes of his show tonight. I don't think that she got played, but it is still a hilarious parody. This is the first bit but there's more after the credits.

[silversage]

Well, she tried and failed.

[meowmommy]

7 hours ago, ktwo said:

 I hesitate to post this, but I love Rachel and I love Colbert, and if you love them both too, you need to see the first 10 minutes of his show tonight. I don't think that she got played, but it is still a hilarious parody. This is the first bit but there's more after the credits.

He has to be a regular viewer.  No other way could he get her style and mannerisms down so perfectly. But he skewered her pretty hard in the monologue.

Edited March 16, 2017 by meowmommy

[Macbeth]

9 hours ago, General Days said:

I would be sorry, but I don't even think she got bit, except by those looking to bite. She did her job the way she always does. 

She was played.  I agree with others that it was Trump who leaked his "tax returns" - 2 pages from 12 years ago hardly qualifies.  She has been a big source of leaks re national security - document that the immigration ban would be harmful to national security as an example.  I believe they wanted to get back at her so ....

Trump's one skill is being able to manipulate and play the press.  When even NPR is commenting on how poorly you did - you screwed the pooch.

IMO

[nowandlater]

10 hours ago, General Days said:

I don't see it that way, at all. She teased that she had some tax returns. She later tweeted which year she had. She presented it and was factual. Are facts the petard, now? 

I would be sorry, but I don't even think she got bit, except by those looking to bite. She did her job the way she always does. 

She built up enormous expectations by being so vague in the initial tweet. The clarifying tweet came 48 minutes later, which is an eternity in social media time. By that time, her name was trending worldwide on Twitter.

if she did her job as she always does, she would've gotten to the tax returns within 10 minutes of her show, not more than 20 minutes and a commercial break later.

I don't recall Rachel ever taking THAT LONG to get to a big news story. It was totally a cynical ratings grab move.

Some argue that at least she got the context out there. But people have been hearing bits and pieces of what she was saying for months. It's out there. They wanted something concrete, not a lecture.

I agree it was a very important story.

But Rachel and MSNBC in their cynicism ensured that it would be a nothing story.

If you are expecting $1,000, and somebody gives you $40, you would be disappointed.

If you are expecting nothing, and somebody gives you $40, you would be delighted.

She gave a gift to Trump. Don Jr. wondered if she was a Republican. Bill Kristol said he thought Rachel might be a secret agent.

[teddysmom]

Rachel is pointing out that Trump can work to eliminate parts of the tax code that affect him detrimentally.  

What exactly was everyone expecting to see?  1099s he distributed to Russian hookers?  Expensing trips to tanning salons?  

Just like the Christopher Steele dossier, everyone is paying attention to the wrong thing. Look at the big picture.

Is Trump sick enough to leak his own return? Yes.  And once again the press is blaming the messenger. 

[Evagirl]

54 minutes ago, Macbeth said:

She was played.  I agree with others that it was Trump who leaked his "tax returns" - 2 pages from 12 years ago hardly qualifies.  She has been a big source of leaks re national security - document that the immigration ban would be harmful to national security as an example.  I believe they wanted to get back at her so ....

Trump's one skill is being able to manipulate and play the press.  When even NPR is commenting on how poorly you did - you screwed the pooch.

IMO

I also believe it was Trump who released those 2 pages from 2005.  It was mentioned by somebody who said, "He combed through years of tax returns to find one where he paid a substantial amount in taxes and released that to make himself look good."  Trump is trying to play the American people.  This is his MO and always has been.  He's trying to get the press to run down rabbit holes and throw them off the scent of Russia, wire tapping, TrumpCare and all the rest.  The White House had a statement already prepared about the taxes.

However, I do have a problem with the way Rachel presented it.  She knew they didn't have a bombshell and she shouldn't have alluded to the fact that she did.  I do not appreciate the way it was held out to viewers like a carrot on a stick in front of a donkey.  I

[ztastviz]

I want all the people criticizing Rachel to go back and look at the reporting done by Woodward and Bernstein on Watergate. Their early reporting on Watergate wasn't earth-shattering either--at first. But each article built on of verified facts, large and small, that couldn't be refuted by Nixon until they brought down his administration by shining a light on those facts.

Edited March 16, 2017 by ztastviz

[izabella]

I guess the question is why people would be expecting $1000 instead of $40.  She's a journalist - not the IRS, not the FBI, not Congress, not Trump.  

If people got their hopes up that we'd get real information on his tax returns for the last year, or the last 5 years, and are now disappointed, their outrage that this information isn't available should be directed at TRUMP.  He is the one who won't release his tax returns. 

The disappointment or outrage could even be directed at Congress and the FBI who won't subpoena the IRS to provide them as part of the investigation into Trump's conflicts of interest with foreign governments and treason with Russia.

[meowmommy]

Just now, Evagirl said:

However, I do have a problem with the way Rachel presented it.  She knew they didn't have a bombshell and she shouldn't have alluded to the fact that she did.  I do not appreciate the way it was held out to viewers like a carrot on a stick in front of a donkey.  I

And that, really, is the core of the criticism.  The endless hype.  If it's news, then present it already.  And in fact, it should have been presented as soon as they received and vetted it, so maybe by Chris Matthews or Chris Hayes.  I've always been annoyed by teasers for news programs.  60 Minutes used to (perhaps they still do, because I haven't watched it in years) include a plug for some story that would be shown on Monday's evening news.  If you're showing it tomorrow, then it's not news.  

[teddysmom]

Quote

 The endless hype.  If it's news, then present it already.  

Chris Hayes, Rachel & Lawrence O'Donnell all present their stories in this format. It's  network criteria to keep viewers tuned in. 

[nowandlater]

18 minutes ago, izabella said:

 

 

19 minutes ago, ztastviz said:

I want all the people criticizing Rachel to go back and look at the reporting done by Woodward and Bernstein on Watergate. Their early reporting on Watergate wasn't earth-shattering either--at first. But each article built on of verified facts, large and small, that couldn't be refuted by Nixon until they brought down his administration by shining a light on those facts.

The problem is that you're dealing with Trump, a godzilla-like creature that is just so hard to take down. Seemingly every scandal has been thrown at him, yet he has found a way to get through it. This is a man who's faced no consequences for the grabbing by the pussy tape and for accusing Obama of breaking the law. 

Trump finds a way to delegitimize anyone or anything that isn't on his side -- again, with no consequences.

So if you are going to strongly imply that you have something big on Trump, make sure it's delegitimization-proof. Make sure that it's something even Fox News can't spin positively.

Again, I'm not arguing with presenting this information. It's the way they presented it. And, again, this isn't how she usually does it.

Quote

Chris Hayes, Rachel & Lawrence O'Donnell all present their stories in this format. It's  network criteria to keep viewers tuned in. 

When was the last time Rachel, Chris or Lawrence waited 25 minutes into their show to delve into a big story that they knew about at the top of the hour?

Edited March 16, 2017 by nowandlater

[teddysmom]

14 minutes ago, nowandlater said:

I want all the people criticizing Rachel to go back and look at the reporting done by Woodward and Bernstein on Watergate. Their early reporting on Watergate wasn't earth-shattering either--at first. But each article built on of verified facts, large and small, that couldn't be refuted by Nixon until they brought down his administration by shining a light on those facts.

This!! Have been thinking the same thing.  This isn't going to be completed in the short term.   

[Ohwell]

12 hours ago, General Days said:

I don't see it that way, at all. She teased that she had some tax returns. She later tweeted which year she had. She presented it and was factual. Are facts the petard, now? 

It's not the facts that were in question, it's the fact that 1) she teased about having some yuge news about his tax returns and 2) she acted like the cat that ate the canary and took so long to present two pages of a tax return from 11 years ago which showed that he actually did pay taxes.  She led the public to believe that she had information that would be damaging enough to cripple his so-called presidency.   I think she disappointed a lot of people, including myself, who were waiting for a big payoff that we didn't get.

Is that petard enough for ya?

Edited March 16, 2017 by Ohwell
11 years

[Evagirl]

26 minutes ago, Ohwell said:

Is that petard enough for ya?

Ohwell - I had to go to dictionary.com to look up the word "petard" then I actually laughed out loud.  Thanks for making my day!

[teddysmom]

Rachel responds to the critics.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/03/15/we-broke-the-story-correctly-rachel-maddow-returns-fire-on-her-trump-tax-scoop.html

[steelyis]

I was bemused so many people were eager to see Rachel's report on Trump's returns to the extent they lost their boners when she only had three pages of a return to show. As someone who wouldn't vote for Trump to be dog catcher, Trump not paying his fair share in taxes is the least evil thing he's been accused of doing. And I think anyone who voted for Trump also assumed he didn't pay much in taxes and don't care if he isn't as rich as he says he is, so I'm not exactly sure what people expected to happen if the return had been damning in that regard.

I know Trump releasing his full tax returns matters, I do, because it can lead to other discoveries and maybe build a stronger case for impeachment, but his Russian connections are what scare the shit out of me.

I did get one thing out of the brouhaha and that's how quickly liberals and progressives turned on Rachel. It reminds me how conservatives will support Fox News no matter how corrupt and truth-y they are, but when someone like Rachel Maddow gives a long-winded report on facts, or Howard Dean lets out a weird scream, or Keith Olbermann gets too "hyperbolic" they're mocked, lose support, or lose their jobs.

I didn't like the speech Will McAvoy gave in the first episode of Newsroom, but one thing he said to the, coincidentally enough, Rachel Maddow stand-in always stuck with me:

"You know why people don't like liberals? Because they lose. If liberals are so fuckin' smart then how come they lose so goddamn always?"

I think liberals' response to Rachel's report perfectly encapsulates that question and answers it.

[stormy]

I was glad to see Rachel move on last night and not dwell on the no nothing tax story.

However, I don't remember if it was Rachel or Lawrence last night that said he will never release his 2016 tax returns (doing what all presidents do). No. He will file an extension and the republicans will be fine with that.

[Evagirl]

56 minutes ago, steelyis said:

I was bemused so many people were eager to see Rachel's report on Trump's returns to the extent they lost their boners when she only had three pages of a return to show. As someone who wouldn't vote for Trump to be dog catcher, Trump not paying his fair share in taxes is the least evil thing he's been accused of doing. And I think anyone who voted for Trump also assumed he didn't pay much in taxes and don't care if he isn't as rich as he says he is, so I'm not exactly sure what people expected to happen if the return had been damning in that regard.

I know Trump releasing his full tax returns matters, I do, because it can lead to other discoveries and maybe build a stronger case for impeachment, but his Russian connections are what scare the shit out of me.

I did get one thing out of the brouhaha and that's how quickly liberals and progressives turned on Rachel. It reminds me how conservatives will support Fox News no matter how corrupt and truth-y they are, but when someone like Rachel Maddow gives a long-winded report on facts, or Howard Dean lets out a weird scream, or Keith Olbermann gets too "hyperbolic" they're mocked, lose support, or lose their jobs.

I didn't like the speech Will McAvoy gave in the first episode of Newsroom, but one thing he said to the, coincidentally enough, Rachel Maddow stand-in always stuck with me:

"You know why people don't like liberals? Because they lose. If liberals are so fuckin' smart then how come they lose so goddamn always?"

I think liberals' response to Rachel's report perfectly encapsulates that question and answers it.

If she hadn't given it such a buildup the drama that ensued would never have happened.  She did this.  It wasn't the content it was the drama she caused by the teasing that it was more than it was.  Don't blame me because I want to see the idiot running the asylum that use to be the white house brought down.  That's why I was excited that maybe, just maybe here's something that will contribute to that.  Instead it gave the idiot something to crow about saying he'd paid $38M in taxes.  Maddow has no one to blame but herself because SHE's the one who made much ado about nothing.

[ElDosEquis]

My wife watches MSNBC religiously.

And the Rachel show, too.

A few weeks ago she droned on and on about a "Russian oligarch" - I play a game when I have to sit thru her show - I try to count all the 'key phrases' she'll use during a rant.  Russian oligarch was one that captured my attention.

After an hour I never found out who this mysterious Russian oligarch was - I laughed and thought it might be a name with 34 vowels, consonants and syllables - too hard to pronounce, until the guy that does the program AFTER was able to vocalize all the Russian names he reported on with little or no problem.

I do know she has something important to say when she starts to blink like a mad woman.

[ScoobieDoobs]

3 hours ago, teddysmom said:

Rachel responds to the critics.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/03/15/we-broke-the-story-correctly-rachel-maddow-returns-fire-on-her-trump-tax-scoop.html

Hey, if she did get played, it was a clever move by him.  Look, I get the impression Rach is eager to break stories.  But she's not in that position.  She's a pundit -- sitting there trying to connect the dots every nite, in her unique hand-waving, eye-rolling, super-snarky way.  But she ain't ever especially breaking stories. 

I get the impression she envies the investigative reporters she has on who actually are getting scoops.  If anything, this episode shows she's not great at handling the breaking of a big story.  And this wasn't even a big story.  

But that's the thing about Rachel.  She over-dramatizes everything.  That's her shtick.  It's up to the viewers to decide if anything (or everything) she says is worth being concerned about.  That is, if they aren't too distracted or annoyed by her non-stop eye-rolling & hand-waving & snarkiness.  It's only lately that I've been hooked on her.  And it's only because of Trump & his lunacy.  I've always found Rachel''s shtick extremely annoying & couldn't stand watching her for more than a few minutes.

Idk that ANY of the other pundits on MSNBC would have teased out an actual scoop the way Rachel did.  Nope, only she'd do that.  Bottom line is her ratings are excellent now & she's beating Fox  Just hope, in her eagerness to break stories, she doesn't let herself become a messenger for Trump.  Cuz then I'd stop watching her for sure.

Edited March 16, 2017 by ScoobieDoobs

[Temperance]

4 hours ago, steelyis said:

I did get one thing out of the brouhaha and that's how quickly liberals and progressives turned on Rachel. It reminds me how conservatives will support Fox News no matter how corrupt and truth-y they are, but when someone like Rachel Maddow gives a long-winded report on facts, or Howard Dean lets out a weird scream, or Keith Olbermann gets too "hyperbolic" they're mocked, lose support, or lose their jobs.

I didn't like the speech Will McAvoy gave in the first episode of Newsroom, but one thing he said to the, coincidentally enough, Rachel Maddow stand-in always stuck with me:

"You know why people don't like liberals? Because they lose. If liberals are so fuckin' smart then how come they lose so goddamn always?"

I think liberals' response to Rachel's report perfectly encapsulates that question and answers it.

Exactly.

I didn't think the piece was so bad, but then I watch Rachel off and on and happened to tune in. One  of my friends on facebook said there were more important things to focus on, and I thougt well then focus on 'em and stop watching the show. If you decided it was a waste of time do something else. If I get bored while watching something, I start going on-line or read a book or get a snack. 

Edited March 16, 2017 by Temperance

[General Days]

7 hours ago, nowandlater said:

So if you are going to strongly imply that you have something big on Trump, make sure it's delegitimization-proof. Make sure that it's something even Fox News can't spin positively.

Again, I'm not arguing with presenting this information. It's the way they presented it. And, again, this isn't how she usually does it.

When was the last time Rachel, Chris or Lawrence waited 25 minutes into their show to delve into a big story that they knew about at the top of the hour?

 

Chris or Lawrence? Never. Rachel? Probably last week. Certainly within the last few weeks. Example.

 

 

On Tuesday's episode (the taxes) the first segment before the commercial break ended at 8:19pm. She returned at 8:22 holding the pages in her hands. 

This is the format of her show. When she didn't immediately get to the taxes, I didn't think she was hyping it, I knew she was putting it in perspective. If she'd had huge news, she never would have broken it the way she routinely breaks stories. She would have gotten to it more quickly, so that there was more time to dissect it.

 

6 hours ago, Ohwell said:

It's not the facts that were in question, it's the fact that 1) she teased about having some yuge news about his tax returns and 2) she acted like the cat that ate the canary and took so long to present two pages of a tax return from 11 years ago which showed that he actually did pay taxes.  She led the public to believe that she had information that would be damaging enough to cripple his so-called presidency.   I think she disappointed a lot of people, including myself, who were waiting for a big payoff that we didn't get.

Is that petard enough for ya?

 

No. There's is no petard for me. There is for you, and that's your petarding prerogative. You saw her as teasing something "yuge." I didn't see her as acting like the cat who ate the canary. I saw her as wonky Rachel, setting up everything in a wonky and detailed way, like she always does.

I know a lot of people were disappointed. I just don't think this was different from what she frequently does. It's her usual schtick of big long set up and. "I'm gonna tell you this long story and will eventually get to my real point. Then, we'll go from there." 

Potato potahto (but never potatoe nor petardo). 

Edited March 16, 2017 by General Days

[meowmommy]

3 hours ago, General Days said:

No. There's is no petard for me. There is for you, and that's your petarding prerogative. You saw her as teasing something "yuge." I didn't see her as acting like the cat who ate the canary. I saw her as wonky Rachel, setting up everything in a wonky and detailed way, like she always does.

Except for the Twitter teases, not to mention the giant box over the right side of the screen with the countdown clock during Chris Hayes's show.  If she hadn't pimped this big reveal across the interwebs, designed to pull in new viewers, and had just reported it like any other show she does, nobody would be saying boo.  But she did it this way to get a lot of attention, and that she did, including from many people who don't watch her regularly and don't know her style.   I still believe if something is news, you report it as soon as you verify it, instead of holding it for ratings, which made her look even more ridiculous because her scoop was scooped.  But in the end, I think she took the chance that any publicity is better than no publicity and chose style over substance.

[ScoobieDoobs]

Sorry for being dense, but I'm not getting the "petard" references.  Can anyone explain please?

[General Days]

49 minutes ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Sorry for being dense, but I'm not getting the "petard" references.  Can anyone explain please?

"Hoist with his own petard," is Shakespearean for "blown up by your own bomb" [source].

Earlier in the conversation, Ohwell said Rachel was hoist on her own petard. I asked if facts were now the petard. Ohwell replied and asked if the response was enough petard for me, then I just got silly. 

(Sorry if I over explained. I wasn't sure if you were asking about the origin of the phrase or how was brought up in the conversation, so I gave you both answers. Hello, my name is General Days and I'm a Rachel Maddow viewer.)

Edited March 17, 2017 by General Days

[ScoobieDoobs]

OK, thanks.  I'm still fuzzy on usage of the word.

So Rach says no matter what Comey says, the Flynn stuff is gonna be an exploding scandal.  Will it be a petard?  No, maybe not.  Sheesh, I have no idea when, where or how to use that word.  Anyhoo, man, Rachel sure is being super dramatic about the Flynn stuff.  Is she right?  Or will this be the billionth thing Trump just slides past?  He's still sticking to the Bam-wiretapped-him lunatic bullshit, in spite of even Repubs saying it never happened.

Edited March 17, 2017 by ScoobieDoobs

[sistermagpie]

22 minutes ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

OK, thanks.  I'm still fuzzy on usage of the word.

I think the phrase means that it was the thing that Rachel was trying to use to attack Trump (hinting at a big scoop, getting everyone to watch her show that night) ended up making her look bad (he payed taxes in 2005). So that's a classic hoisted on her own petard. Her "smugness" etc. just made Trump smug because the taxes were clean.

Personally, I don't really feel that way since people seem to generally be seeing it as just not that big of a deal rather than any blow to RM's general credibility or a great defense of Trump who seems as dirty as ever. It's not like this is the only thing that point in this direction and the taxes were from 2005, so they're not completely relevant to his finances now.

[meowmommy]

She took a swipe at Stephen Colbert tonight.  I guess the storm of criticism bothered her more than she let on.

1 hour ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

So Rach says no matter what Comey says, the Flynn stuff is gonna be an exploding scandal.  Will it be a petard?  No, maybe not.  Sheesh, I have no idea when, where or how to use that word.  Anyhoo, man, Rachel sure is being super dramatic about the Flynn stuff.  Is she right?  Or will this be the billionth thing Trump just slides past?  

She's getting all dramatic again about all these revelations pending tomorrow, and I am sensing the girl who cried wolf.  Trust level is not high.