All Episodes Discussion: 2017 Season

[IrishPirate]

Why oh why was Mike Lee of Utah labeled a Democrat on MSNBC tonight? He very clearly said he was one of those working on the health care disaster, "But don't ask me what's in it. I haven't seen it."

[irisheyes]

6 hours ago, IrishPirate said:

Why oh why was Mike Lee of Utah labeled a Democrat on MSNBC tonight? He very clearly said he was one of those working on the health care disaster, "But don't ask me what's in it. I haven't seen it."

But Rachel's apology was hilarious!  As a fellow sufferer of near sightedness, I feel her pain.  :)

[attica]

I loved (well, you know what I mean) the reporting on the county-by-county look at what election districts were hacked and which weren't. Probs no collusion, then, right?!?

[M. Darcy]

That was Rachel at her best.  She covered the horror of what happened today and gave us a history lesson at the same time.   And, it gets even better - none of the bathrooms at the Capitol Police station were handicapped accessible.  One of the women arrested tweeted about it.  

She also said just how many people were dependent on the vital funding that is being eliminated.  I never saw the numbers like that before. 

And she said we were adorable babies.  

[attica]

The toss last night to LO'D was great: "What is this 'teach'?" So funny, so true, so sad.

[jjj]

Rachel was r-e-a-l-l-y stretching history to suggest that there might be a Supreme Court Justice resignation announced on Monday.  She went back to 1987 for an example -- but no Justice since then has announced on the last day of the term:  Souter, O'Conner, Stevens all resigned at different times (Rehnquist and Scalia died in office, of course).  So, there might be a resignation coming, but history does not suggest that the announcement would likely be Monday.  (I had to look up Blackmun and Stewart, but they also did not announce on the last day of the term.)  Maybe someone will resign Monday.  But it would not be a traditional day to make the announcement. 

[car54]

I've read other rumors about Kennedy retiring before Rachel covered it and it made me very nervous.     I hope it doesn't happen.

[jjj]

Well, I'm not disagreeing that Kennedy is apparently planning to retire-- Grassley had said that months ago.  I was objecting to her trying to say there is a tradition of announcing on the last day of the term.  But maybe she has inside information.  

3 hours ago, car54 said:

I've read other rumors about Kennedy retiring before Rachel covered it and it made me very nervous.     I hope it doesn't happen.

[attica]

14 hours ago, car54 said:

I've read other rumors about Kennedy retiring before Rachel covered it and it made me very nervous.     I hope it doesn't happen.

Yeah. this bit struck me as a bit of misery-borrowing. I mean, there's plenty of time to fret if/when Kennedy retires: do we have to fret about it now? 

[car54]

Last night I heard something that indicated he might stay another year, so hopefully that will delay one thing we have to worry about.    He's an important vote for those of us on the right.    I don't know about others, but I worry about pretty much everything since the election.  :(

[ahisma]

Holy smokes. Rachel spelling out the sheer idiocy of the current White House occupant is a thing of beauty. (That seasoned R lawmakers are trying to go down that same road is horrifying.)

[Keepitmoving]

Thank you Rachel for being the only program on your network NOT to cover Trump's tweet,thank you. I knew she wouldn't cover it, it has not a thing to do with policy. You cover his tweets when they specifically deal with policy. What specifically does he say in his tweet affects his policies on say women's health? We know he hates us, but covering just that in his tweet about a specific woman 24/7 when the tweet says nothing about specific policy, is a waste of time.

Good show last night, got a lot covered, that was newsworthy. Meanwhile, the rest of the news media looked like idiots covering that tweet IMO. Saying the same shit over an over again about behaving presidential, they look pathetic, they look like puppets. 

Edited June 30, 2017 by Keepitmoving

[M. Darcy]

Wow, congrats to Rep Lee.  While its not a done deal yet, this is the furthest she has ever come in getting that passed.  Trump must be really scaring them if Republicans are seriously considering taking away that war authority. 

Though, when she saying a special guest was coming up, I was a little worried she would be taking about her friend Greta (who if you missed it, is gone from MSNBC). 

[sistermagpie]

1 hour ago, Keepitmoving said:

Thank you Rachel for being the only program on your network NOT to cover Trump's tweet,thank you. I knew she wouldn't cover it, it has not a thing to do with policy. You cover his tweets when they specifically deal with policy. What specifically does he say in his tweet affects his policies on say women's health? We know he hates us, but covering just that in his tweet about a specific woman 24/7 when the tweet says nothing about specific policy, is a waste of time.

 

I thought her only subtle reference to it was when she repeated her advice to pay attention to what they were doing rather than what they were saying or whatever. I immediately thought of that Tweet when she said that.

[netlyon2]

Dear Rachel Maddow,

First off, I must say that I hold you in the highest esteem.  Like my fellow PTV posters, I particularly appreciate your commitment to ignoring the noise and reporting the news.

That being said, I have noticed a problem that has been plaguing you recently and would humbly offer the following assistance (courtesy of thesaurus.com):

Quote

 

Synonyms for remarkable

adj extraordinary, unusual

curious, exceptional, important, impressive, miraculous, momentous, notable, noteworthy, noticeable, odd, outstanding, phenomenal, rare, significant, singular, solid, strange, striking, surprising, uncommon, unique, wonderful, arresting, arrestive, conspicuous, distinguished, famous, gilt-edged, greatest, marked, peculiar, preeminent, primo, prominent, salient, signal, smashing, splashy, super, uncustomary, unordinary, unwonted, weighty, wicked, world class, zero cool

 

With great respect and affection,

netlyon2

[jjj]

I also hold Rachel in the highest esteem but the way she is stretching her predictions is very irritating.  Yesterday she spent her final segment talking about the "Friday news dump" (which is a real thing, yes), and how the weekend before a holiday calls for a really BIG "Friday news dump". 

Then, tonight, Friday, 15 minutes before the end of her show, she excitedly reported "I told you this would be a big news dump day!"  And then reported on a new Wall Street Journal story about GOP ties to hackers.  She is smarter than that.  That story is not a news dump, it is reporting.  A news dump is what the White House does when it spits out its own news and hopes no one notices.  The WSJ new article is high-profile reporting, not a "dump".

Plus, come on, there have been HUGE stories every night of the week over the past few months.  The "Friday" aspect is much less significant that it was in the print-only and network-only days.

This bugs me the same way as did her proclamation of "Supreme Court Justices tend to resign on the last day of the session."  No they don't. One did.  Most resign in July or April.  Again, she is smarter than this.  And she got stung by her prediction on Monday, because it was based on false information, false history.   

[sistermagpie]

19 minutes ago, jjj said:

Plus, come on, there have been HUGE stories every night of the week over the past few months.  The "Friday" aspect is much less significant that it was in the print-only and network-only days.

Also, does this WH even do dumps on Fridays the same way? They seem way too disorganized and clueless to be holding bad news for Friday--or even know what the bad news is, if they're Trump. He just Tweets out stuff whenever. That's his news dump. The real stories come from the press working on their own schedule.

[IrishPirate]

There have been so many Friday news dumps (as opposed to Friday-night-of-a-three-day-weekend news dumps) that Rachel has dropped her cocktail shaker... 

[meowmommy]

I can't say I hold Rachel in the highest esteem.  Sometimes I like what she does, as when she has dug in on the Russian connections, but too many of her quirks are too quirky for me.  The "tick tick tick" from Thursday night drove me batty, as it was a point without a purpose, that went on and on.  And to take the same WSJ story from Thursday and repackage it on Friday as something new and different was annoying.

That said, her opener about the strategic use of assholery, by someone who has made assholery an art form, as a means of distraction was well done.

[ahisma]

The A block was amazing tonight! One of the best editorials about Trump's distraction tactics I've ever seen. (It was seriously annoying to come off Rachel's Thursday night show and find neither the Peter Smith story nor the Barbara Lee story in the Google News headlines, but 45’s tweeting was the top story.) 

And winding it up with the defunding of the Election Assistance Commission—damn. THAT is some Friday night news dump from the House of Representatives, right there. 

The addition to the WSJ's Peter Smith story tonight made me giddy—I would love to see Steve Bannon's carcass dragged out of 1600 Pennsylvania! 

I did my homework. My state's SoS will be sending voter records to Kobach, but only the publicly available info, not SSN or birthdate. Some of our county recorders are questioning even doing that. Homework #2, I will be emailing the SoS to request she instead press Washington to restore funding for the Election Assistance Commission, seeing as how we were one of the states confirmed that Russia tried to hack. How are your states responding to Kobach?

 

2 hours ago, meowmommy said:

The "tick tick tick" from Thursday night drove me batty, as it was a point without a purpose, that went on and on. 

I know a lot of people who have been following Benjamin Wittes' twitter for his "tick tick tick"—he was the hero of political junkies around the Comey hearings. They were clapping their hands with glee that it made Rachel's show. It's just too bad he's retiring it. 

[ktwo]

Quote

And to take the same WSJ story from Thursday and repackage it on Friday as something new and different was annoying.

There were really two different WSJ stories, though.

[shok]

7 hours ago, ktwo said:

There were really two different WSJ stories, though.

There were, and the story is only going to get bigger. This blog written by one of the contributors to the WSJ story is just beginning to hit social media and blow up. I'm glad that Rachel was one of the first to glom on to the story and I hope she doesn't let it go.

https://lawfareblog.com/time-i-got-recruited-collude-russians

[TobinAlbers]

Richard Engel show takes over on Friday's for the summer.  Rachel gets summer fridays off starting July 7th. 

[attica]

Programming alert! My channel grid is showing  Tuesday's show at 5 pm et. Prison will fill primetime. I also expect it'll be the TRMS version of a clip show.

[jjj]

Well, Monday is a clip show, also -- after all her predictions of the big, big weekend news dump, we get a pre-recorded show on Monday.  NOTE:  Do not listen to this show in the background, because she is providing clips from months ago that sound like BREAKING NEWS and "TONIGHT".   None of it is news, and none of it is "tonight". 

I'll bet the Tuesday show is a repeat of this.   I'm out.  Someone let me know if any anyone actually breaks into the clip show with news.  I know she deserves a long weekend.  But gee, there is still news that someone could report.  I skipped Chris Hayes to give Rachel my viewing time tonight.  Grumpy.   

19 minutes ago, attica said:

Programming alert! My channel grid is showing  Tuesday's show at 5 pm et. Prison will fill primetime. I also expect it'll be the TRMS version of a clip show.

Edited July 4, 2017 by jjj

[suomi]

4 minutes ago, jjj said:

NOTE:  Do not listen to this show in the background, because she is providing clips from months ago that sound like BREAKING NEWS and "TONIGHT".   None of it is news, and none of it is "tonight". 

I know, right? A few minutes ago I heard "Breaking News - Trump Fires Acting Attorney General" and the hair on my head spontaneously combusted.

[jjj]

Anyone listening to this on the audio podcast is going to think the country is imploding all on one night -- at least the clips have the dates on them on the screen -- but I was listening while typing, and twice went "WHAT?????" -- and had to keep checking the screen to see if it were "live" or "clip".  Yikes.  I stopped before ten minutes went by.  I do not need PTSD TRMS clip shows. 

16 minutes ago, suomi said:

I know, right? A few minutes ago I heard "Breaking News - Trump Fires Acting Attorney General" and the hair on my head spontaneously combusted.

[Galloway Cave]

I liked it too, if only to show how in December she was all "BREAKING NEWS! OMG" in loud caps, big eyes, leaning forward and jazz hands, and by June she was so weary and just rolling her eyes, shuffling her papers and wearing a perpetual "are you fucking kidding me?" look on her face. It also goes to show just how much went on in the last 18 months with this election and the campaigns (especially the Trump campaign and transition) and how much work Mueller and his team must be doing to figure it all out. Because if this is the info that is public, imagine all the info that is classified...

[M. Darcy]

The show kind of gave me whiplash in figuring out which was the "new" stuff and the old. 

[Galloway Cave]

35 minutes ago, M. Darcy said:

The show kind of gave me whiplash in figuring out which was the "new" stuff and the old. 

It helped that she was wearing her gray blazer for the new stuff and most of the old stuff featured her black blazers. Maybe she needs to add in a dark purple one for these clip shows? ;)

[ScoobieDoobs]

She was talkin' about Jeb & I lost interest & patience & tuned out.  Rach, get to it, will ya, hun?  He's meeting with Putie, so be all over that without going on stupid tangents I don't give a shit about for what seems like an eternity, OK?

[M. Darcy]

I honestly kind of forget that Jeb even existed.   It was interesting that Poland warned everyone that Russia was interfering with governments and no one paid attention. 

[car54]

Jeb is the one who paid for the Steele dossier, so in a way he's still involved in a way.

[attica]

Ooh, that was a good scoop. I hope they find out who's trying to ratfuck TRMS. And I'm glad that the show is mindful of the W history. Maybe Cate Blanchett will get cast as Rachel, too!

[jjj]

22 minutes ago, attica said:

Ooh, that was a good scoop. I hope they find out who's trying to ratfuck TRMS. And I'm glad that the show is mindful of the W history. Maybe Cate Blanchett will get cast as Rachel, too!

Was this on the Thursday show? 

20 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

She was talkin' about Jeb & I lost interest & patience & tuned out.  Rach, get to it, will ya, hun?  He's meeting with Putie, so be all over that without going on stupid tangents I don't give a shit about for what seems like an eternity, OK?

I love this show, but have hardly any time for television, and I just lose patience with these long tangents.  Just get to the insight, which is so valuable.  And she is one of the prime shows for prime guests, so I would not mind another guest dialogue instead of the 20-minute discourse on Jeb.  And I'm not being fair, because I am sure it was not 20 minutes on Jeb, but I turned it off after five minutes of Jeb. 

[attica]

Yep. A-block tonight felt 10 minutes; it was 25 minutes long. Somebody's shopping forged 45/Russia docs to news outlets. 

[nowandlater]

20 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

She was talkin' about Jeb & I lost interest & patience & tuned out.  Rach, get to it, will ya, hun?  He's meeting with Putie, so be all over that without going on stupid tangents I don't give a shit about for what seems like an eternity, OK?

 

I watched Monday's episode, and it was a "Greatest Hits" episode, like they'd do on '80s sitcoms to fill time.

I was wondering if Wednesday's episode was brand new, so I tuned in, and she was talking about Jeb for what seemed like a really long time. And I again wondered if this was a pre-taped bit, which would be odd with all the stuff that was going on in the world.

But seeing the reaction to tonight's show made me watch it semi-live for the first time in a while.

[Calvada]

Which are the five states that haven't told Kris Kobach to pound sand about providing voters' identifying information?  I checked for my state's response (fortunately, this is a not a decision Scott Walker and his gang get to make; it's in the hands of the State Election Commission that pointed out releasing PII such as SSNs & DOBs, is not allowed under Wisconsin law), but I wonder which states are still thinking about this.  If I lived in a state that decided to provide any PII to Trump I would instantly sign on for a class action suit.  C'mon, force the Russians to hack 50 states' voter bases; don't consolidate the info in one computer system, especially one in the hands of the current administration.  If Trump got this info, we'd probably see pictures of him gleefully handing a flash drive to Russians in the Oval Office.  

As a reader of mysteries, I enjoyed Rachel detailing how they investigated what was sent to them and determined it was a fake.  So who did this?  Breitbart?  Infowars?  The RNC?  Whoever did it is the most incompetent ratfucker ever, with the typos, errors in spacing, etc. that she described.

But I loved her message to other news organizations - be very careful - and the unspoken middle finger to the person(s) who did this.  Hey guys, like Veronica Mars, Rachel is (and always will be) smarter than you. 

I've never gone to this website where people can send things to Rachel.  I wonder if TRMS is able to determine the sender of something to them.  

[Kitty Redstone]

She was pretty giddy when she said they were working on finding out who sent the forged document (or at least where it was sent/uploaded from), so I think so.  Go get em, Rachel.

Hopefully this story will get picked up and spread far and wide.  I'm not at all surprised it happened - what with this administration's war on our constitutionally protected free press and their clumsy attempts to derail the many investigations into their actions - but I am curious if other news outlets have had similar experiences. 

[sleekandchic]

1 hour ago, Kitty Redstone said:

She was pretty giddy when she said they were working on finding out who sent the forged document (or at least where it was sent/uploaded from), so I think so.  Go get em, Rachel.

Hopefully this story will get picked up and spread far and wide. I'm not at all surprised it happened - what with this administration's war on our constitutionally protected free press and their clumsy attempts to derail the many investigations into their actions - but I am curious if other news outlets have had similar experiences.

 

**********************

Reply from sleekandchic:

As Rachel related the hoax's events and their timeline, I became convinced that she was sent the same story that CNN.com retracted, causing it to require three staffers' resignations.  The American citizen/Trump ally named in the retracted cnn expose was Anthony Scaramucci, and he was so damned gracious in his "everyone makes mistakes," acceptance of CNN's apology, that I was genuinely suspicious at the time.  The Trump people are not known for their graciousness toward the press.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/26/media/cnn-announcement-retracted-article/index.html

FWIW, I like Rachel's long expositions of her main stories.  She's a storyteller at heart, and she respects details and nuances.  Her methodical approach and dedication to the Truth are keeping me sane, especially when circumstances seem darkest. And, honestly, I approach the narratives I'm required to write for my job in the same painstaking way, filled with observations and tiny details that most people never notice.  So I am a fan of Rachel's eyes-on-the-prize style.

Edited July 7, 2017 by sleekandchic

[ZoqFotPik]

4 hours ago, Calvada said:

Which are the five states that haven't told Kris Kobach to pound sand about providing voters' identifying information? 

As of July 3rd, Hawaii has not received a formal request of the information.

 

4 hours ago, Calvada said:

I've never gone to this website where people can send things to Rachel.  I wonder if TRMS is able to determine the sender of something to them.

The site may log the IP address of anyone who uploads. Now those can be masked or falsified, but it would be a place to start. The metadata on the file itself may also provide clues to it's origin.  The police caught the BTK killer, for example, because of metadata in manifesto he sent to the news. So, yes there are ways to determine who sent the file.

Edited July 7, 2017 by ZoqFotPik

[jjj]

I don't believe Trump knows Hawaii is a state -- in the travel ban case, he called it "some island in the Pacific ".  :) 

29 minutes ago, ZoqFotPik said:

As of July 3rd, Hawaii has not received a formal request of the information.

 

[3pwood]

5 hours ago, jjj said:

I don't believe Trump knows Hawaii is a state -- in the travel ban case, he called it "some island in the Pacific ".  :) 

So maybe he really did believe that Pres. Obama wasn't born in America.  Ignorant but sincere?

[teddysmom]

Quote

I don't believe Trump knows Hawaii is a state -- in the travel ban case, he called it "some island in the Pacific ".  :) 

I thought that was Sessions that said that when he was blasting the court decision there. 

Quote

 

e was pretty giddy when she said they were working on finding out who sent the forged document (or at least where it was sent/uploaded from), so I think so.  Go get em, Rachel.

Hopefully this story will get picked up and spread far and wide.  I'm not at all surprised it happened - what with this administration's war on our constitutionally protected free press and their clumsy attempts to derail the many investigations into their actions - but I am curious if other news outlets have had similar experiences. 

 

I saw part of this and I'm a little confused. She referred to the documents that the alleged NSA leaker, Reality Winner, was arrested for sending to The Intercept, and I thought Winner admitted she did it.  Was the doc that Rachel got a copy of the leaked doc The Intercept published?  Why would someone send that to Rachel if it had already been published somewhere else.  Or did they take a copy of that doc and do something to it and send it to Rachel? 

I know I'm missing something here, I didn't see the whole story, but I've tried to find online what she was talking about with no luck. 

[ahisma]

Quote

I saw part of this and I'm a little confused. She referred to the documents that the alleged NSA leaker, Reality Winner, was arrested for sending to The Intercept, and I thought Winner admitted she did it.  Was the doc that Rachel got a copy of the leaked doc The Intercept published?  Why would someone send that to Rachel if it had already been published somewhere else.  Or did they take a copy of that doc and do something to it and send it to Rachel? 

I believe the timeline of events is:

Reality Winner printed out at work some classified material about a Russian hacking attempt right before the election, folded it up, and snuck it home.

She provided the document to The Intercept. The Intercept started trying to get it verified.

Reality was arrested.

TRMS received a different document with bombshell information about someone in the Trump campaign involved with Russian hacking. 

Various officials who saw the document from Reality asked The Intercept to black out some information. The Intercept decided what they had was real, agreed to black out some of the information, and published. 

TRMS efforts to verify the document they had received determined that a cut-paste job was used to put new text over a base of Reality's document. (They also decided, after talking to the NSA, that the text was not genuine, as it actually named an American citizen.) 

They still don't know what is going on with who sent it because the forged document was sent to them sometime after Reality was arrested and before The Intercept published their original. No one from the general public would have had Reality's document to work from in creating the forgery. 

Edited July 7, 2017 by ahisma
Clarity

[teddysmom]

So someone took the NSA doc, changed it and added more false information to set up TRMS.  Got it. 

Thanks a bunch. I was asleep and woke up when she was talking about this so was a little groggy, and I think I just fell back asleep. I'm usually not this dense. 

[ScoobieDoobs]

2 hours ago, ahisma said:

I believe the timeline of events is:

Reality Winner printed out at work some classified material about a Russian hacking attempt right before the election, folded it up, and snuck it home.

She provided the document to The Intercept. The Intercept started trying to get it verified.

Reality was arrested.

TRMS received a different document with bombshell information about someone in the Trump campaign involved with Russian hacking. 

Various officials who saw the document from Reality asked The Intercept to black out some information. The Intercept decided what they had was real, agreed to black out some of the information, and published. 

TRMS efforts to verify the document they had received determined that a cut-paste job was used to put new text over a base of Reality's document. (They also decided, after talking to the NSA, that the text was not genuine, as it actually named an American citizen.) 

They still don't know what is going on with who sent it because the forged document was sent to them sometime after Reality was arrested and before The Intercept published their original. No one from the general public would have had Reality's document to work from in creating the forgery. 

Thank you for this.  Rachel's presentation last nite was muddled & unclear.  And once again, I lost patience & tuned out.  Look Rach, if you have something important to say . . . SAY IT & SAY IT CLEARLY!  Don't shlep out a long intro & talk about muddled shit that seemingly has no relevance.  Honestly Rach, you & your producers are making terrible choices by making your show difficult for viewers to watch & comprehend -- and to hold our interest.

WaPo has a story with a headline that says exactly what she shoulda said directly in 2 seconds -- Media, watch out!

[teddysmom]

Quote

Thank you for this.  Rachel's presentation last nite was muddled & unclear.  And once again, I lost patience & tuned out.  Look Rach, if you have something important to say . . . SAY IT & SAY IT CLEARLY!  Don't shlep out a long intro & talk about muddled shit that seemingly has no relevance.  Honestly Rach, you & your producers are making terrible choices by making your show difficult for viewers to watch & comprehend -- and to hold our interest.

Thank you!!!  I love Rachel but sometimes her wonkiness gets in the way of getting the story out.  I watched the segment online and understood it, but only  after ahisma described it for me. 

Rachel gets so wrapped up in what she's trying to say that she can't get out of her own way and JUST SAY IT!. 

There's an interview with her in Rolling Stone and she said she writes the A block herself, and maybe she should have staff look at it and say "You aren't saying what you mean here, or , there's a better way to say this that the viewer will understand more easily", also stop repeating phrases over and over. 

This is too important for us to have to get together and have someone translate her show. 

I just read the WaPo article and had to laff at their comment "Maddow presented in her trademarked long-form TV narrative style — the particulars of which we won’t detail here".  

Edited July 7, 2017 by teddysmom

[Keepitmoving]

Quote

Thank you for this.  Rachel's presentation last nite was muddled & unclear.

I got it all, she gets long winded sometimes, but for the most part I like her presentation. Like she said in that Rolling Stone interview her style isn't for everyone. She never confuses me, as a matter a fact, I like listening to it and predicting where I think she's going with this introduction. This story last night was awesome, because it certainly dawned on me quite a long time ago that the press could be set up to think that YES! we've got him, we've got this administration, only to find out that their sources/documentation are all fake courtesy of the Trump camp and his boyfriend Putin. The few times she's mentioned her email addresses and told viewers to send info. to it, I thought, yeah, now they'll be sending her all kinds of fake shit, so she can put it on her show and be made a fool of. Fortunately, I wasn't too worried about Rachel and that staff at TRMS, they are hella thorough. She also mentions this in that Rolling Stones interview, about how it's hard to keep staff, about the quick turn over because of how extremely taxing it is to work on her team, so doctored documents, Trump/Putin are going to have to do better than that to bring her down.    The tax returns she got, I have no doubt that the Trump camp had them sent, but they weren't fake and luckily I'm a viewer who got her entire point of showing them, which was to say that they could be shown and if that's the case where are the rest? Since he sent the tax returns from his oh so good year, where are the rest of his oh so good years of tax returns? As a matter of fact, where are the rest of the pages of the returns he sent? Why hide them? Please release. 

Edited July 7, 2017 by Keepitmoving

[teddysmom]

There are only a few people that had access to that exact NSA doc prior to The Intercept publishing it. So either someone at The Intercept is fucking with Rachel, or someone at FBI.

I can't imagine the FBI ran to a Trump staffer and said here if you want to screw with the media, add some juicy stuff to this and email it to "sendittoRachel.com".   

Of course I still can't imagine Donald Trump is our President, so there you go. 

The WaPo article also mentions Paul LePage calling up Maine media outlets and feeding them fake stories just to fuck with them.