Don't know what to make of Rob Reiner's tweet re dump's taxes

[ailsagirl]

Link to tweet

[monmouth4]

1. I just said this in another thread. Great distraction..n/t

[truebluegreen]

2. I'd call it on target.

[PatSeg]

3. I don't know what to make of that either

Rachel can walk and chew gum at the same time. She still brought up the Russian connections, as did David Cay Johnston.

[oasis]

25. Oxford doesn't pass out Rhode Schoralships like it was trick or treat candy.

Rachel is as sharp as they come.

[BeyondGeography]

4. Which is why Trump leaked them

2005...surely the most taxes he ever paid. Squirrel!

[still_one]

5. Rob Reiner is right. This was a distraction of nothing, purely for ratings

[MFM008]

6. Its a

loosed to distract from R U S S I A.

[KittyWampus]

7. Gee, there aren't enough OP's saying the exact same thing. Taking a dump on Rachel

Good for you in starting yet another one. You should feel very proud.

[NRaleighLiberal]

8. I think that the truth - where we need to go - it is going to be messy

there will be fits and starts.

But I think the media - all of us that actually think - can walk and chew gum at the same time - there are multiple powder kegs. When one finally blows, they will all blow.

I think that we will need Rachel to do what she did tonight - and keep doing it - and we need more to join her.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

9. I don't agree. It's not like all these issues are compartmentalized

and we can't think about more than one at a time. It's possible that Trump did leak these pages in an attempt at distraction, but although the returns are interesting (more for what they don't reveal than what they do), this is a one- or two-day story. The ACA repeal and the Russia issues are not going away regardless of what is said for the next couple of days about Trump's 1040.

[KittyWampus]

12. Thanks for being a voice of reason. Which isn't always a popular thing to be on DU

Your post on Chris Hayes convinced me to delete my OP.

I'm glad I didn't get sucked in by Rachel's tease.

I stayed quiet and watched. Am still watching.

[anneboleyn]

14. I agree but I think it was also an attempt to smear Rachel. This shows Trump doesn't like her

excellent coverage of the Russia stuff. I think she overhyped this story -- but i don't think this story will last very long given that Trumpcare and Russia will be breaking "new" news.

[moonscape]

29. Agree - Rachel was no accident:

Donald Trump Jr.‏ @DonaldJTrumpJr

Thank you Rachel Maddow for proving to your #Trump hating followers how successful @realDonaldTrump is & that he paid $40mm in taxes! #Taxes
7:08 PM · Mar 14, 2017

[Maru Kitteh]

10. I agree with him.

And I do think Trump leaked it.

Probably president Bannon's idea.

[anneboleyn]

11. I agree. Huge distraction from Trumpcare and Russia. And it looks like someone targeted Rachel

deliberately. This was a two page summary of taxes from twelve years ago, and we learned nothing new. Why she went all in for this story in the way she did (that tweet saying that she had Trump's "tax returns -- seriously!" was definitely misleading) is beyond me.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

13. Nope, the Russian story and the ACA discussions won't go away.

This will get a fair amount of press for a day or two but the others will still be there. I, for one, am very capable of thinking about several issues at the same time.

[anneboleyn]

15. I agree with you. But I think Trump and co were trying to target Rachel

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

16. Could be, but it won't work unless the hand-wringers let it happen

by wringing their hands and complaining that the story wasn't such a big deal. I think she'll keep investigating what she's been investigating regardless of Trump's tweets and some people's hand-wringing; and I think we should keep supporting her. She's one of the best.

[scheming daemons]

17. He's right.

Rachel blew it.

[KittyWampus]

22. LOL!

[mnmoderatedem]

18. worse yet, O'Donnell

is spending HIS entire hour covering this non issue, Rachel and Johnson sitting in, none of them seemingly aware there is nothing there and they are playing their way into trumpie's hands.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

19. I think you are missing some really important points.

It's true that these 2 pages of Trump's 2005 returns don't reveal what we need to know to connect him with Russia or other dodgy activities. What they do reveal is that Trump paid an AMT instead of the mere 4% he would have had to pay otherwise - so will he try to get the AMT repealed for his own benefit? And where did those two pages come from? Somebody sent them to DC Johnston - who? Was it Trump himself, as Johnston speculated? If so, did he do it to discredit TRMS? To create a distraction? And the WH has acknowledged the authenticity of those pages. This is the tip of an iceberg, and it proves that there really is an iceberg.

[oberliner]

20. What percentage of people in the US do you think care about any of that?

Very close to zero.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

21. Some people will care. I care. And at some point people with power

will care. Hardly anybody cared about the Watergate burglary at first either, and it was passed off as a non-story. For awhile.

The pieces will come together in time.

[progressoid]

24. We knew he didn't pay his share of taxes before the election.

He even admitted it during the debates. Didn't seem to make any difference to the American voter.

[KittyWampus]

23. Actually it was an interesting discussion. If DU'er weren't busy pouting they might have learned

something.

And O'Donnell is actually now talking about Bannon's Breitbart attacking Ryan.

[Renew Deal]

26. Healthcare will be just as bad tomorrow. Russia issue is not going away.

[stopbush]

27. tRump's taxes have not been a front-burner issue since before the election.

It was a distraction. Unless Rachel had something explosive and in-depth to offer, she should have passed on this one-night wonder.

[fleabiscuit]

28. We all can't see past our self imposed blinders sometimes. nt

[greyl]

30. I don't know what to make of your OP.

/sarc

[ailsagirl]

31. I started this thread and want to add...

that neither Lawrence nor Rachel is exactly naive. They've been in this business for quite awhile and are aware of things like distractions. Aside from the fact that the return is from 2005, it still opens up some tantalizing aspects to that dumb clod's "character" and it gives up something concrete to go on.

Also, the most damning aspect of dump's transgressions is his close ties to putin. That's not going to disappear.

IMHO