• Log In
  • Sign Up
    • Great question. I read the whole thing as well, though I'll admit that after a while I was skimming. My own reaction was, nothing surprising here. We knew he was a con-man years ago, and this only confirmed it. I suppose that in order to evoke a reaction, they would have had to come up with illegality that still could be prosecuted. Maybe that will come from Mueller at some point, we'll see. But 'rich real estate guy uses loopholes and maybe fraud to avoid taxes' is not exactly news to anyone paying attention.

    • Hmmm, I was interested but even I didn't read it. Politico ran a story saying it bombed because it was too long — they could have made it a 3-part series like other Pulitzer-winning stories — it was too complicated (taxes), and the New York Times didn't share the story with media like the Washington Post.

      I have a bigger interest in the story: are the tax cuts and tariffs going to work? I have always wondered since The Apprentice days, how did Trump get his wealth? Does he really know finance or did it come from inheritance and and ill-gotten gains?

      Watching his approval rating rise 9 points as the revelations surface about Manafort, Cohen, and Daniels makes me wonder about something darker, at least to me: do voters care?

    • Thanks for the link to Politico. I find it interesting that they discuss distribution strategies to create "momentum" and "amplify" the article. The information can't stand on it's own. Or maybe to @Richard's point, there was actually nothing that felt new. What would be new at this point?

      I suppose it begs the question what gives something traction? In content and entertainment it always seems like things are hit driven and it's either a winner or not.