Epic Fail: Rachel Maddow Mocked After Dragging Out Trump Tax ‘Scoop’

Wow, talk about waking up next to that and chewing your arm off. Sort of goes for both of them....

 

It is the nature of news reporting today. It is more important to be first than to be right. The public cares more about first than right. The public no longer cares that much about whether they are even in the ballpark when it comes to cable news which is a constant IV of bias confirmation. Things like these used to require editorial board decisions with lawyers and executives weighing in. Now it is, "Hey, Bob, okay if I run with this?" "Sure, you're the talent."

 

Who's values and who's wisdom?

 

I wouldn't be so sure about that. It is a fact traditional media, both the printed type and television are losing market share in advertising to emerging online sources. Both TV and printed media are scrambling to get online and develop an audience, but having trouble. Big names in print and TV news used to have an advantage with their correspondents in distant capitals and expert analysts, but with the internet even you and I right here can replicate their extent and depth with little effort and good cybernavigation.

Traditional media has lost mass appeal and now is adopting the strategy of it's online competition by catering to specific audiences. We see this right here in the reaction to cited sources; where once some would dismiss Mother Jones and New Republic, now venerable sources like The Washington Post and New York Times get the same reaction.

I used to think media that distorted excessively would have to fail eventually as their audience confronted reality, now it seems we all are in our own bubbles; some think Maddow's ratings are or will go through the roof, others are convinced her career is over -and both have to them reliable sources that prove this.

 

Pretty much everything Rachael said in her 20 minute rant BEFORE she revealed the tax return that didn't support a word of what she had said.

 

This. Nuff said. (Is this what happens when one gets that hoof-in-mouth disease?)

 

I see. So you see nothing wrong with the person who is 4th in line to the Presidency possibly controlling who has access to her based on payments made to her wonderful "foundation", but you have a problem with a private citizen selling a piece of property to a foreign national? Yeah, these two things are exactly the same thing...

You loose credibility when you don't stop to think...

 

Stephen Colbert Brutally Mocks Rachel Maddow's Lengthy Trump Tax Form Tease

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/stephen-colbert-mocks-rachel-maddows-trump-tax-tease-986628

This is a pretty funny clip .

 

I certainly understand your analysis and you make valid points, but my overall point is someone with bad ratings will eventually be sacked, this the public decides. Even if an outlet had 30 viewers those 30 would ultimately decide who stays or goes.

 

She has been investigated more than any politician in history, so show me the guilty verdict from any of them.

Again, I'm dealing in facts. Your dealing from the bubble. I don't like Hillary, but I also realize that she has been found guilty of nothing, after being investigated numerous times, and most of those by Republican commissions. You can make all the excuses you want, she has been found guilty of nothing.

Holy WOW batman....Theres a lot in that sentence, and none of it true other than Trump being a private citizen.

Lets take it one at a time:

Accepting cash with SOS - Got any proof ? And remember, you have to show proof that she directly received money from the CGI before that statement can be true.

Rigging the Primaries - Really, she "rigged the primaries" ? How did she do that ?

Using the Attorney General - Really, and proof that she did that ? (hint: she got 4 million more votes than Bernie)

And here is where the Irony, that I'm sure you don't see is. You claim everything against Hillary based on what is reported in the MSM. Yet when they report on Trump, its all "fake news". Why isn't it "fake" when they report on Hillary ?

You also don't see the hypocrisy in the fact that you take all that from the MSM and you want Hillary investigated on the accusation, yet when the very same types of accusations are made against Trump, you defend him from being investigated based on the those very same sources.

YES, Trump WAS a private citizen. Thats never been questioned. What is up for question is that he is NOW the President of the United States and you apparently don't care if he is beholden to a foreign power. The very same sources made the accusations on both sides. You know NOTHING about trump, yet you claim him clean, you know everything about Clinton and you still call her a crook.

cred·i·bil·i·ty
ˌkredəˈbilədē/
noun

1. the quality of being trusted and believed in.

 

The info on Hillary came from Wikileaks, not the MSM. No one has ever disputed the veracity of Wikileak's releases.

 

And What has Wikileaks released on the Turmp/Russia investigation ?

 

She blamed her viewers later on. Wonder how all the posters here defending her feel about being thrown under the bus, essentially calling them stupid. http://komonews.com/news/nation-world/maddow-people-disappointed-by-trump-story-expected-too-much

Maddow told the AP that she never misrepresented what she had.

"Because I have information about the president doesn't mean that it's necessarily a scandal," she said. "It doesn't mean that it's damning information. If other people leapt to that conclusion without me indicating that it was, that hype is external to what we did."

 

Please show us where Hillary received the payments to her personal bank account.

I don't have a problem with Trump selling the land. Never did. I have a problem with the fact that he is now the POTUS and that he may NOW be beholden to that person/nation. This isn't just about the house deal. It is all the accusations being made, and the intel community now all in agreement that the russians helped Trump get elected that makes this deal now smell. So the defense of him being a private citizen is a huge red herring...but you already knew that

 

You are not dealing facts at all. You are just spewing rhetoric. Any fool (with a brain) who has seen what she was doing knows she was guilty as hell. Guilty of an illegal email server and taking cash. None of this is actually in question and both are against the law. She failed to report the cash in some cases and had to issue a statement to the DOJ who exonerated her of charges.

LOL...What a total hypocrite.

Are you really going to question the primaries were rigged? I can bring all the proof and already have but why bother with you? You would dismiss anything that doesn't fit into your little agenda. Well, think whatever you want. As they say, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. lol

 

You said people were relying on the same MSM. They aren't. They're paying attention to the undisputed, unchallenged, and accepted veracity of Wikileaks. Because only fools pay attention to the MSM anymore.

 

Which means he is paying attention to MSM.

 

People are not relying on the MSM. Old school fairy tales.

Maddow sure created a breeze that has turned into a whirlwind that's bringing them all to shame though, din she?

 

She sure did. It makes me happy. Almost giddy-ish.... lol

 

Is that for real?

Wait I see the issue. The picture on the left was attached to her Fox News application. The picture on the right was for MSNBC.
She got hired by MSNBC so that's the look we get.

 

Maddow is a Democrat. Enough said, nothing honest comes out of her very large mouth . She spreads anti American propaganda and should be fired, yet at MSNBC she will be promoted.

 

She looks like Chris Hayes.

 

It's her.

Cheers

 

Then why didn't any of the congressional "fools with a brain" find the evidence to prove her guilty ?

Its a simple question......

So you agree that it was the DNC that helped, and that they worked in concert to influence the electorate against Bernie ?

If thats the case, then why couldn't russia do the very same thing for Trump ?

 

Which proves nothing towards her wrongdoing. Maybe you missed it but she and her husband have a history of witnesses falling on their swords and refusing to testify using claims of 5th Amendment, attorney client privilege and even going to prison for their refusals. And not having a guilty verdict does not disprove wrongdoing. Comey laid out the wrongdoing before he hit his buttmonkey and then testified to it before the committee. But who knows what went on in the secret meeting on the tarmac between the Attorney General and her husband. And we certainly get to assume some impropriety with their acts demonstrating their consciousness of guilt.

Secretly working with the DNC. The DNC and the whole superdelegate let's give here a 30 yard headstart and make Bernie carry and extra 30 pounds. Having a confidant get debate questions before the debate.

The tarmacy thingy.

And your evidence of that is what?