I KNEW this would happen...

[brooklynite]

People here were so obsessed with the idea that Trump's tax returns would have a smoking gun showing criminal activity, that anything less is seen as a failure of journalism.

Trump's actual tax payments, and his desire to eliminate the AMT (which would allow him to pay less) is newsworthy. Sorry if it's not enough.

[uponit7771]

1. So this is what should be focused on, this is new then ... I'll repeat often

[SickOfTheOnePct]

2. Yep

And I've seen a couple of people here saying that he got a tax break because of the AMT...that doesn't even make sense, since the whole point of the AMT is to force people to pay more in taxes.

[brooklynite]

8. Yes, but the AMT rate is lower than the upper marginal tax rate.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

13. Yes

but a lower rate on a larger amount of money still amounts to more money paid, which is the whole point of AMT.

[HoneyBadger]

15. AMT is there to make you pay more than you want to

[Trekologer]

59. Yes but if not for the AMT he would have had a tax rate around 4%

The AMT is the only reason he paid a barely reasonable tax rate. And Trump wants to eliminate the AMT. So one of the questions we need to ask is whether his policies are in the best interest of the country or just him and his rich friends.

[elleng]

3. Thanks for saying this, brooklynite.

[gordianot]

4. It makes people hungry for the real deal.

[bigtree]

5. the Rachel bashing is embarrassing for DU

...you're absolutely right about looking for a silver bullet and ignoring the actual fight on the ground.

This is a good and useful discussion with Kay and Bechloss

[oberliner]

9. But the tease implied something much bigger

And this conversation is not all that good or useful.

[bigtree]

21. the reaction to that tease here makes folks look like media rookies

...lots of substance to the show and well worth watching.

I wonder about the motivation to denigrate the effort, based mostly on folks' own faulty speculation.

The White House even responded to the show with similar dismissive language. That should concern critics here, beyond judging Maddow for reporting it.

This is DU bubble nonsense. Real issues were discussed. Rachel bashing detracts from those issues, by deliberate design or through ignorance.

[oberliner]

22. You are completely wrong

The reaction to the tease here actually shows how savvy DU-ers can be.

The White House most likely leaked the documents. Rachel got hoodwinked and handled it poorly.

[bigtree]

24. focusing ire on Maddow

...is rookie shit, or something more pernicious.

[oberliner]

25. It's OK to be annoyed with people we like and admire

Does not hurt the cause at all. We are among friends here. It's OK to say she handled this badly.

[bigtree]

26. the WH couldn't have asked for a more sympathetic reception to this report here

...important conversation still continuing, btw, on ODonnell's show, for anyone who actually cares about this issue beyond this speculation game.

[oberliner]

27. The WH most likely is the source of the leaked document

And it is playing out exactly as they figured it would.

She should have tweeted that she had 2 pages of 1 return and that the show would focus on the topics it is focusing on - instead of implying there was some bombshell.

[bigtree]

44. um

Rachel Maddow MSNBC? @maddow 14h14 hours ago

What we've got is from 2005... the President's 1040 form... details to come tonight 9PM ET, MSNBC.

[oberliner]

45. That was after this one

Rachel Maddow MSNBC?

BREAKING: We've got Trump tax returns. Tonight, 9pm ET. MSNBC.

(Seriously).

[bigtree]

46. maybe should have checked further

...on your way down from the stratosphere.

[oberliner]

51. She waited an hour to post the second tweet

For what reason, I wonder.

[bigtree]

56. you've come all the way down to the utter inanity of your argument

...pathetic.

[oberliner]

58. Pathetic, it may be

Honestly, I think it is reasonable to say that she over-hyped this, and it was annoying. I am certainly not the only person who feels this way. Rob Reiner, for instance, made a similar observation - as did many other liberal and progressive folks.

[LanternWaste]

53. Or how easily led they are by simplistic commercial branding for ratings

The reaction to the tease here actually shows how savvy DU-ers can be... "

Or how easily led they are by simplistic commercial branding for ratings; in thinking that leads, teasers and previews are anything but leads, teasers and trailers.

Each allegation containing as much objective as the other, each illustrating how "completely wrong" we pretend everyone else is in an effort to illustrate our own cleverness...

JFC.

[oberliner]

55. No illustration of cleverness intended

Just sharing my opinions on the matter. Obviously folks may disagree strongly with my assessment. Hence, the purpose of a discussion forum. My view is that she went too far with the hyping and it pissed people off (myself included, obviously).

[womanofthehills]

32. It's only the beginning - Rachael said she's sure more Trump tax returns will be showing up

Who knows - she might have more -- drip, drip, drip

[oberliner]

43. I think it is important to remember what her goal is

Which is - getting more people to watch her television program and follow her twitter feed for the purpose of selling more advertising.

That is not to say that she has not done great commentary with illuminating information along the way, but this sort of hype and tease is a good reminder of what the bottom line is for any television program.

[bigtree]

47. actually, her goal was to interpret the released taxes from a critical pov

...the entirety of which was lost on you.

That's not her failure, it's your own disinterest in the informative analysis provided by Trump biographer, Kay, which has left you obsessing on a tweet.

Btw, you could do much worse than watching her show. You might get a clue as to why so many folks regard her reporting as invaluable and vital.

[oberliner]

49. No it wasn't

Her goal was to get people to watch her program. And she succeeded in doing that through her tweet(s), the promotion of her show on the show prior to hers (Chris Hayes), and the social media hubbub that resulted from those things.

The "informative analysis" provided by David Cay Johnston (who you are calling "Kay" for some reason) contained no new information and nothing particularly different from what he has said on her show (and other shows) in the past.

My obsession is not with a tweet but rather with the way in which this non-story was hyped. Lots of people got their hopes up that she actually had something noteworthy - and she did not.

[bigtree]

54. I have to believe only her detractors would object to her wanting folks to watch her show

..how sad that you believe there's nothing to be gained from her aggressive, progressive reporting.

Complaining about her promoting her show is nonsense.

You're going out of your way to denigrate one of the very few major voices in televised media taking time to deconstruct this presidency. I can't say I'm the least bit surprised to find you here, working as hard as you can to tarnish Maddow.

It's not working, btw.

[oberliner]

57. Reconsider that belief

I like her show a lot - if I didn't, this would not have bothered me. Fox News and other loathsome outlets do this kind of BS all the time.

It is a moment of disappointment and annoyance precisely because it is coming from someone I respect and admire.

[bigtree]

60. it's a tiffle

...and this is a curious way to treat someone you 'admire,' basically accusing Rachael of dishonesty for the sake of viewership.

All of this based on a tweet that got you all hyped-up.

I'll keep my beliefs, thank you.

[oberliner]

61. OK

I appreciate the conversation and will definitely consider the points that you have made.

We can both agree (I am sure) that it would be fantastic if somehow this led to all of Trump's tax returns being made public.

[yeoman6987]

67. Yes she got tons of eyeballs last night

But what will be the next time? Will eyeballs say no thanks? That's the risk she made. I am excited to watch tonight to hear her explanation. No way she can ignore it. Her name is everywhere in the media and not positively.

[Kingofalldems]

68. Typical, yeoman6987. Your overall message is to bash a Democrat.

[MFM008]

69. I think next time

She will be more specific in what she has.

And we will watch.

[we can do it]

11. Thank you. Sick of the bashing.

[oberliner]

6. The whole first 20 minutes of her show implied that the taxes would show criminal activity

Then there was a commercial. Then it turned out the documents she had showed nothing of the kind.

[anneboleyn]

20. I agree. I feel that it was misleading, and her work on the Russia connections is SO important

One wonders if Trump and co sent them in as a distraction from the Russia/Trump stuff and the horrible news on the dismal healthcare bill.

[womanofthehills]

39. She did not imply that - in the first few minutes she said the most important thing about the story

was that for a reason she cannot discern, the document was made available. She said that was the most important part of the story. She then proceeded to talk about Trump being under audit is not an excuse. Said it doesn't make sense. Talks about house Trump bought for $40 million and sells to Rybolovlev for $100 million - taxes would show why - bizarro dump when Trump owed money to bank. Why would someone want to pay $60 million more when home prices are dropping.

I think it was smart - she got people to tune in and then gave out tons of info about Trump and Russian ties. Talks about plane and yacht of Dmitry Rybolovlev being near Trump's plane and yacht at same time. Talks about dumps of foreign money that cannot be explained, a huge problem for the pres of US. This weekend Mercer and Rybolovlev yachts next to each other in Palm Beach.

Rachel says people need to know about Trump's money from foreign sources, banks, etc. Income that originates from foreign governments is unconstitutional. She thinks he is financially beholden to an individual or a country and we need to get his tax returns so we can answer these questions. She believes THIS IS ONLY A START.

This is how Rachel's shows always go - drip, drip - lots of info that needs to be put together. I think she was great and this is only the beginning. She knows she will get more tax returns.

[oberliner]

41. She did not imply any criminal activity on the part of Trump?

That could be revealed via his tax returns?

Sure seemed like she did.

[Hoyt]

7. Exactly, like his tax attorneys are going to put "Russian bribe" as a source of income.

[Tatiana]

10. Yes. We learned that Trump actually has paid taxes.

Another thing he tried to lie about.

Guess he's not that smart after all...

[underpants]

12. I knew it couldn't be much

Didn't watch - don't get MSNBC. Reading here I see that this was really quite embarrassing for Rachel.

[brooklynite]

14. It wasn't embarrassing; it was news reporting.

Good to know you can make an informed analysis without actually watching.

[EffieBlack]

30. How is it "embarrassing for Rachel"?

She's not a shill or an operative and is not trying to achieve a specific outcome. She's a joirnalist reporting on information she received. There's nothing for her to be embarrassed about.

[KittyWampus]

33. It's actually more embarrassing for some DU'ers who are having a collective meltdown.

[womanofthehills]

40. You can podcast it and see how great Rachel was

No embarrassment - she was on the story big time with lots of info.

[BainsBane]

16. I'm watching in on the DVR

and am still in her protracted intro with "if" this and "if" that. That there isn't much in the returns probably explains why she's taking so long to get to them.

[MFM008]

17. funny its the least damaging thing that could get out

he actually showed he PAID taxes.
im afraid the maggot set Rachel up.

[Juliusseizure]

19. Exactly

[CousinIT]

18. That and they only paid 4% in tax. n/t

[bigtree]

23. coupled with the huge losses he's been reported as claiming

[Bernardo de La Paz]

28. The first two pages of a 12 year old return is unlikely to ever have been a smoking gun.

Let's see who owns his loans.

Let's see if he gets Rosneft stock.

Let's see who is paying him and who he is paying.

[Thekaspervote]

29. This is divide and conquer

If ol gasbag leaked those hoping that Rachael would lead the story, then you can bet he's now having the result he wanted. Divide and conquer. STOP!!

[elmac]

31. Comcast is not real journalism

and never will be. if it were they would be reporting on keystone and net neutrality... I'm glad they do let their journalist hosts talk about things that don't hurt their bottom line like the russian ties.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

34. watching the AMT part now.

It does carve out a platform to get wonky on.

[58Sunliner]

35. It struck me that she should have had a discussion about the possibility of Turd

releasing the documents and why he would do that? How quickly did they respond to the request for verification? That was the story for me. Just two sheets and no supporting documents? I think she missed a chance to frame the debate and put Turd at a disadvantage. If it was him, don't expect any supporting documents to follow, unless he was able to clean it up, or hadn't taken blood money.

[mcar]

48. She did

Johnston specifically said that and it was discussed.

[58Sunliner]

65. It was more in passing it seemed. I think she could have made it a focal point.

[Ccarmona]

36. Couple of Items

Having a Banking Commercial Loan background, as soon as I heard they only had two pages, I knew they had very little. The story is in the schedules and addendums.
That said, the White House's immediate reaction shows Trump knows he's screwed if they had more. I say call his bluff because he put out cursory tax information before the show started. Next time say you've got it all, and then await his reaction.

[GallopingGhost]

37. I sat and watched and listened

to the entire program, something I don't get to do too often.

This was my take. No, there was no bombshell tonight. She knew Comrade Cornsilk leaked the returns himself; she had to. She isn't stupid. I think she has a long term plan.

Ever been to a party you don't really want to attend, but you hang out at the buffet table munching on carrot sticks because you know the shrimp will be brought out next?

What she did tonight was whet people's appetites. She made a point of saying that there is more to come, that there is much more out there. She openly invited those with the means to send her more.

The majority of Americans want to see his returns. It's tax season; everybody is thinking about them. Her point tonight wasn't so much look at these two pages; it was what is in the pages that haven't been released?

I thought she did a beautiful job of driving home how his refusal to release his taxes is a danger to the country, on so many levels. She hammered home connections with Russia, mobsters, Iran, ect.

[milestogo]

38. ITS JUST ONE FUCKING YEAR.

Who is to say whats in the rest of the years returns?

[Skittles]

42. TWELVE FUCKING YEARS AGO

I mean, seriously, WTF - the questions should be, where are they for the past DECADE?

[jberryhill]

64. It's a shame that Lincoln scratched the "TWELVE FUCKING YEARS AGO" part of the Gettysburg Address

[mcar]

50. It brings the tax return issue back up

And, as was said on the show, Trump has no excuse to not release his 2016 returns, in full as presidents do, when they are ready.

[MoonRiver]

52. Get back with us when he releases the LAST 16 YEARS OF TAX RETURNS. eom

[unblock]

62. meh. sorry, but, meh.

republican, especially rich republicans, have long proposed slashing the top marginal tax rate, and it was obvious they would personally benefit from that.

ok, so donnie would have benefited from elimination of the minimum tax back in 2005. it would be far more interesting if we knew if he would benefit from that in 2016, but in any event, it's pretty standard to expect rich republicans to personally benefit from their own tax proposals.

self-dealing is part of their political philosophy.

fine, it's worth pointing out, but, really, this is not very surprising or significant.


as for his tax returns showing criminal activity, i've never been in that camp. i've always said he could release just his 1040s, or maybe even with schedules, and it would be very, very difficult to prove russian ties or criminal activity. it's the details that support the numbers that might reveal that sort of thing, and he can easily withhold that information.

for example, his schedule a might show a lot of total interest expense, but it wouldn't say if any was to russian loan sharks. we'd still be left to speculate.

[TNLib]

63. No it's not even close to being good enough

It's a 2005 client copy tax return and not a complete picture of 2005 revenue sources. It's not even a recent tax return.
This tax leak seems to be nothing more than an attempt by Trump to control the media news cycle.

But I'm not going to criticize Maddow. She's a cable news reporter. She's better journalist than most but she is still a cable news reporter and cable news is about ratings.

[Juliusseizure]

66. She lied to her core audience but...

...I'm open to the possibility there was a greater purpose here, despite Comcast owning MSNBC. All broadcast media's ultimate, and often sole purpose, is to make profit. That's a fact.

Maddow lied about having "tax returns" (plural). Lawrence O'Donnel lied when he tweeted "it's what we've been waiting for".

I don't like when trusted people lie to me. White lies ok, but this is as serious a political issue as it gets. It's only justified if there's a larger purpose. However, that's as speculative as all the future returns that "may" come out.

Maddow may be more motivated by ratings and profit than concern for the country. Maybe not. She earns 7 million a year and 20 million net worth. She may feel that's enough, or maybe not nearly enough. So many "maybes" when your credibility is questioned.

If she just reports news, not news that may occur in the future, I'll stop speculating.