All Episodes Talk: TRMS 2020 Season

[tessaray]

Discuss 2020 episodes of The Rachael Maddow Show here. Usual rules apply; discuss the show; personal politics will get a post removed, and repeated violations may result in further sanctions. Thank you! 

Questions?  Contact @thewhiteowl or @tessaray. 

[M. Darcy]

Rachel’s back on tonight! 

[ScoobieDoobs]

OK, so Rachel was snarky when there were too many running for the Dem candidate -- which I totally agreed with.  But tonite she seemed to be complaining there were too few left (only 5 so far are left to be in the next debate) -- and she snarked that the ones left were not diverse enough.  Uh, why the snark, Rach?  The candidates left have qualified and the ones falling out haven't or didn't want to continue running.  So why the snark, Rach?  It's really not helpful. 

Castro is a nice guy, but that interview bored me & I checked out.  Rachel's reporting on the court news affecting the Impeachment was much more interesting.

[Hanahope]

10 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

nd she snarked that the ones left were not diverse enough.

Rachel's attitude does not help.  of the 5, only 2 are straight white men.  that's diversity.   and no one has selected a VP.

 

[freddi]

I was prepared not to see Rachel, so it was a good surprise to see her back.  But it seems like Chris Hayes was the one who needed some reassurance from Rachel in the handoff, where he was clearly concerned and confused about the strike in Iran:  “I don’t know what this will mean.”  “Chin up,” said Rachel.  

[ScoobieDoobs]

That Rachel was there got my attention cuz I knew it wasn’t random.  She was there cuz important stuff was happening she wanted to cover — particularly the court decisions affecting the Impeachment.

But when I saw Rachel live at midnite, I got a very sick feeling the Iran story had horrible ramifications I didn’t want to think about.  Glad Rachel’s instincts to be totally on top of it were 100% correct, but I couldn’t watch.

Rachel is right when she keeps admonishing viewers not to be overwhelmed by the never-ending awfulness of this administration, but sorry, Rach, I am & just need a break from it, even if only for a day or 2.  Thank goodness Rach clearly refuses to take a break from it.

Edited January 3, 2020 by ScoobieDoobs

[ahisma]

Considering that Rachel opened by emphasizing that we have to operate on split screen now between Iran and impeachment, she spent 99% of the show on Iran. (And not even a mention of Puerto Rico’s earthquake.)

[ScoobieDoobs]

And NO mention of the latest Flynn development?  Er, huh?  I figured, given how she’s been mocking his Fox lawyers so often in the past, she’d be eager to report (certainly with a gleeful snicker) how the Feds now want him to serve time, when they didn’t at all, before he hired the Fox lawyers.

Focus, Rach, cuz ya got a lot to cover.  And please don’t waste any more precious show time on Warren (or other candidates) giving repeat stump speeches.  We’ve heard this stuff before & too many times.  I did like Warren putting out clearly the notion that Trump’s dealings with Iran is likely due to his feelings on Impeachment.  But otherwise, Warren’s presence was dull & unnecessary.

She was way too easy on Warren & just let her go on with the same stuff I’ve heard her say a billion times before.  Rachel has no poker face, does she?  Big diff from the way she was with Pete, when he was last with her & she mostly gave him a sneering stink-eye.

[meowmommy]

5 hours ago, ahisma said:

Considering that Rachel opened by emphasizing that we have to operate on split screen now between Iran and impeachment, she spent 99% of the show on Iran. (And not even a mention of Puerto Rico’s earthquake.)

After watching Chris's show, where he seemed like he was on the verge of a nervous breakdown, I really wanted Rachel to help calm me down, but she was just about as wired for sound as he was.  The tone both of them gave off took me back to the start of the first Gulf War and CNN's coverage.

3 minutes ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

And please don’t waste any more precious show time on Warren (or other candidates) giving repeat stump speeches.

I don't really even watch those interviews any more.  I fell asleep watching the Warren interview (I record and watch late at night).  What I heard wasn't anything inspiring or interesting.

I have been so curious as to why Rachel has invited just about every fringe and mainstream candidate around, but hasn't had Joe Biden on, so I looked to see if she'd ever interviewed him or if there was a history of bad blood.  Yes, she's interviewed him and no, I couldn't find a negative history.  Seems like if you're running for president as a Democrat, you'd want to get a spot on MSNBC's #1 show, but maybe that's just me.

[ScoobieDoobs]

I’ve accused Rachel of getting too dramatic, but last nite was a pretty dramatic time, so her sober manner was appropriate.  And yet she made me so tense I had to tune in & out.  I’m glad she stressed how erratic Trump is & how it’s impossible to believe ANYTHING Trump or his henchmen says.  

I like that she keeps repeating the crazy statement that they were gonna evacuate Iraq & now they wanna pretend the statement was never made.  Uh, WTF?  Stay on this, Rach!

[ahisma]

6 hours ago, meowmommy said:

I have been so curious as to why Rachel has invited just about every fringe and mainstream candidate around, but hasn't had Joe Biden on, so I looked to see if she'd ever interviewed him or if there was a history of bad blood.  Yes, she's interviewed him and no, I couldn't find a negative history.  Seems like if you're running for president as a Democrat, you'd want to get a spot on MSNBC's #1 show, but maybe that's just me.

Biden also has not interviewed on Pod Save America, a huge podcast by guys that know him from working in the White House with him. They’ve tried to get him, to no avail. I don’t think he’s been on Colbert or any of the other late night shows either, so I think it’s not Rachel, he’s just in no interviews mode. 

[attica]

It's not like any of the candidates don't have agency themselves. Perhaps the Biden camp has refused invitations?

[buttersister]

 

19 hours ago, ahisma said:

I don’t think he’s been on Colbert or any of the other late night shows either, so I think it’s not Rachel, he’s just in no interviews mode. 

Biden appeared with Colbert in September, fwiw. Memorably, he allowed as how he's stumbled a bit telling stories on the campaign trail, but pointed out that is a different thing than getting things wrong like locking kids up in cages.

 

[ScoobieDoobs]

Ah, Rach & her charts.  That was a good one.  So was she kinda mocking Steyer?  In the sign-off, when LOD said he was having Steyer on his show, Rach didn't exactly seem jealous.  Hmmm, could Rach have been offered the Steyer interview & took a pass?

[meowmommy]

Uh oh, is Rachel going to piss off the NY Times again?  Or is this payback for when they banned their reporters from going on her show?  I've never seen her call out a non-RW news organization like that.  Not that they didn't deserve it.

Chuck!  Where have you been?  More than two minutes, please, Rachel.  

I kept waiting for the funny story that would blow my mind that she teased in the A block.  Was it something Steve Kornacki said?  Didn't laugh and mind wasn't blown.  Stop doing that, Rachel.  Just stop.

 

[ScoobieDoobs]

2 hours ago, meowmommy said:

Uh oh, is Rachel going to piss off the NY Times again?  Or is this payback for when they banned their reporters from going on her show?  I've never seen her call out a non-RW news organization like that.  Not that they didn't deserve it.

Yeah, not only did she give The NY Times a well-deserved shot, she also gave one to Comey too.  Have to say, I was kinda pissed at Rach when she interviewed Comey (when he was pushing his book) cuz it seemed like she was actually sympathetic to that POS.  Guess not,  Anyhoo, well done, Rach, very well done.

Did Rachel seem just a wee bit suspicious about Steyer's sorta promise to Andrea Mitchell, that he'll use his vast dough to help the eventual Dem candidate?  Me too, Rach, me too.

Rachel went nuts with poofing gone Dem candidates, so if you're into her poofing & missed her, ya might wanna catch it.  And she managed to get a shot in on poor loser Tim Ryan.  Why the Tim Ryan hate, Rach?  He doesn't seem worth the effort.

And finally, finally, finally Rachel got to Flynn, but it was worth the wait.  The Flynn snark gave me some much needed snickers.  Thanks for that, Rach.

 

[ahisma]

What a relief that we are (temporarily?) back from the brink of war, and Rachel had time to dig into the Democratic primary, the end of the Hillary investigation (wow, f.u., New York Times), and the Flynn sentencing. We needed the breather!

[ahisma]

11 hours ago, meowmommy said:

I kept waiting for the funny story that would blow my mind that she teased in the A block.  Was it something Steve Kornacki said?

It was supposed to be mind-blowing how Tom Steyer got into the debate, over the other candidates who are polling better in IA. And, okay, he did astonishingly well in SC and NV polling. And, turns out, he spent an OBSCENE amount of money in those states.

Unfortunately, Rachel did such a big diagram of Steyer and Bloomberg spending the previous night that it kind of stole her own thunder. Yes, the specifics are interesting and explanatory, but for us mere mortals, “numbers big—general” and “numbers big—specific” all kind of blurs together. 

[meowmommy]

<sigh> Maybe y'all get something out of Rachel's parade of failed Presidential candidates, but I don't.  You tried, you failed, now go back to your day job and come back in 4 years if the urge strikes. 

The other stories of the day were much interesting and important, and she whizzed through them like she was late to her own funeral.  

[ScoobieDoobs]

Rach, why waste all that precious show time on Booker?  He’s another failed candidate.  Yawn, who cares?  I tuned out, not interested in the least.

[tessaray]

10 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Rach, why waste all that precious show time on Booker?  He’s another failed candidate.  Yawn, who cares?  I tuned out, not interested in the least.

Didn't they go to school together? Or am I thinking of someone else?  I thought she got a little teary eyed there at the end of the interview but maybe she just had something in her eye. 

[ScoobieDoobs]

Yeah, there is some personal connection w/Booker.  She & Al Sharpton were trying hard to make Booker happen, but he just never had any momentum as a candidate.  

Ah, but this is Rach.  If you like her, I guess you must also accept her Booker love & her endless comparisons of whatever happens in the news to past history.  Hopefully, that needless, way too long interview with him will be the last one (at that length of time anyway).

Oh, Booker’s POV is certainly welcome, but not for 20 minutes.  He’s a nice guy & intelligent & passionate, but move on & get over it, Rach.  He seems fine with it, you should be too, Rach.

[meowmommy]

1 hour ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Hopefully, that needless, way too long interview with him will be the last one (at that length of time anyway).

Yeah, there's a reason this was a "Rachel Maddow Exclusive."  It's because nobody else was interested.

[freddi]

11 hours ago, tessaray said:

Didn't they go to school together? Or am I thinking of someone else?  I thought she got a little teary eyed there at the end of the interview but maybe she just had something in her eye. 

Corey and Rachel were both Rhodes Scholars (in different years).  It is a club of alumni/ae who remain connected even if they were at Oxford in different years.  

Edited January 15, 2020 by freddi

[Pearson80]

18 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Yeah, there is some personal connection w/Booker.  She & Al Sharpton were trying hard to make Booker happen, but he just never had any momentum as a candidate.  

Ah, but this is Rach.  If you like her, I guess you must also accept her Booker love & her endless comparisons of whatever happens in the news to past history.  Hopefully, that needless, way too long interview with him will be the last one (at that length of time anyway).

Oh, Booker’s POV is certainly welcome, but not for 20 minutes.  He’s a nice guy & intelligent & passionate, but move on & get over it, Rach.  He seems fine with it, you should be too, Rach.

Booker was just too Kumbaya for the electorate. The base of his party wants a fighter who will fight.  He is a great senator and I think he can effect change in this country without being President.  

I had no problem with the long interview. It showed that Rachel was giving his supporters the chance to hear from him.  Also, Booker is an example that the Black vote is not guaranteed to you just because you are Black. You have to earn it and show that you can win the general.

Edited January 15, 2020 by Pearson80

[gatopretoNYC]

Tonight Rachel will have on the show... LEV PARNAS! 😲

[Pearson80]

2 hours ago, gatopretoNYC said:

Tonight Rachel will have on the show... LEV PARNAS! 😲

Go Rachel! she is killing it.. I wonder how her rivals on other channels feel about her. I remember Chris Cuomo threw shade at her..

2 hours ago, gatopretoNYC said:

Tonight Rachel will have on the show... LEV PARNAS! 😲

Go Rachel! she is killing it.. I wonder how her rivals on other channels feel about her. I remember Chris Cuomo threw shade at her..

[freddi]

3 hours ago, gatopretoNYC said:

Tonight Rachel will have on the show... LEV PARNAS! 😲

No way!  I am astonished that his legal team and the SDNY would let him do any interview.  This is amazing.

ETA:  And here is a former prosecutor telling Ari and Stephanie why this is so potentially problematic for Parnas and the case:  https://www.msnbc.com/velshi-ruhle/watch/parnas-on-the-hook-criminally-makes-surprising-choice-to-give-tv-interview-msnbc-legal-analyst-76824133596  

Edited January 15, 2020 by freddi

[Quilt Fairy]

4 hours ago, gatopretoNYC said:

Tonight Rachel will have on the show... LEV PARNAS! 😲

I worry about this.  Rachel is not always a good interviewer, it depends on the interviewee.  It does not help that I have always had a feeling that Parnas could be a Putin troll. 

I hope this does not become another "Trump's tax returns!" episode.  

ETA: I stand corrected. Chris Matthews has shown parts of the interview and it looks awesome.  I will definitely be watching, 

Edited January 16, 2020 by Quilt Fairy

[Pearson80]

Rachel slayed tonight.. Lev Parnas threw everybody under the bus. I am just shock appalled and sad, an unbelievable hour..

Edited January 16, 2020 by Pearson80

[freddi]

Well, that was amazing, even though I have no idea what was true and what was not.

And Rachel told Lawrence that she has been working on getting this interview for a very, very long time, "then it came together quickly".

This will be dissected in all the newspapers and news shows over the next 24 hours, until her next segment with Parnas airs.  Whoa.  

ETA:  The "hand-off" to Lawrence was eleven minutes, essentially a debriefing with Rachel.  And Rachel was still jazzed about it all, as she should be.  

Edited January 16, 2020 by freddi

[Quilt Fairy]

17 minutes ago, freddi said:

Well, that was amazing, even though I have no idea what was true and what was not.

And therein lies the problem. 

[Pearson80]

2 minutes ago, Quilt Fairy said:

And therein lies the problem. 

True! however, most informants have checkered pasts and Lev is no different..

[BabyVegas]

6 minutes ago, Quilt Fairy said:

25 minutes ago, freddi said:

Well, that was amazing, even though I have no idea what was true and what was not.

And therein lies the problem. 

That was definitely my concern as well. I don't trust any of these Trump satellite folks further than I can throw the lot of them. I thought Rachel sort of addressed it in her debrief with Lawrence - Parnas's assessment is that talking makes him safer rather than less safe. But especially after Manafort, I only trust these people as far as their stories can be corroborated. What Parnas was saying, specifically about who had to have known about what he was doing, all makes a ton of sense. It's not like the accusation that Barr and Nunes are heavily involved came out of nowhere. 

[meowmommy]

Now, that, Rachel, is a Rachel Maddow Exclusive.  Hard to know who initiated the contact to get the interview, whether it was Lev or Rachel, but interesting that of all possible journalistic outlets, he trusted her enough to be the place where he could talk, with the apparent blessing of his lawyer and the SDNY lawyers.

Clearly he's self-serving rather than selfless.  He's not doing this because he got a sudden attack of patriotism.  But he also knows that if anything he says, in public or private, is found to be contradicted by hard evidence, his whole house of cards designed to keep him out of jail will come tumbling down.

[Ladyrain]

Did anybody else notice Parnas' lawyer fixing a death stare on Rachel?   He didn't take his eyes off her for the entire hour.   I don't think he even blinked.  It was creepy.

[freddi]

13 minutes ago, Ladyrain said:

Did anybody else notice Parnas' lawyer fixing a death stare on Rachel?   He didn't take his eyes off her for the entire hour.   I don't think he even blinked.  It was creepy.

Watching the repeat right now, and you are right.  He is blinking, but Rachel is certainly getting the death ray look from him.  I understand that he needs to have a poker face constantly, and I guess he decided to stare at Rachel and freeze his facial muscles.  

[ScoobieDoobs]

Idk. I know you love getting scoops, Rach, but I just hope that Lev isn't playing you.  What made me very suspicious (and Rach was very skeptical on this too) was Parnas' take on Hyde & this loon's stalker rantings on Amb. Yovanovitch.

As regular viewers of Rach, we know well that Rachel has routinely mocked Lev . . . er, so he's OK with opening up to HER?  Really?

Yeah, yeah, yeah, LOD was going nuts with Rach over this interview.  Sorry, I couldn't get with their enthusiasm.  Look, Lev is a very, very shady & sinister character & he clearly has credibility issues.  And right after the Rach/LOD lovefest/congratulations-on-the-"scoop" stuff, Barb (thank goodness for her), threw much needed cold water on that convo & the Rach interview with Lev.  Barb said this kinda informant info happens all the time, but it is essential for it to be verified & confirmed thoroughly.  Sooo, did Rach do that?

Oh, Rach, I really hope this isn't another getting-Trump's-taxes fiasco.  Not everything Lev said can be verified.  I see this as similar to Michael Cohen.  Most of what he said was mocked & dismissed.  Whatever Lev is saying will probably be also.  Sigh, I really wish you'd leave the scoops to others Rach, cuz this is just not your strength at all.

[FoundTime]

5 hours ago, Ladyrain said:

Did anybody else notice Parnas' lawyer fixing a death stare on Rachel?   He didn't take his eyes off her for the entire hour.   I don't think he even blinked.  It was creepy.

That totally creeped me out. I tried to tell myself he was looking at the camera operator, who might have been in the same general vicinity, but it didn't feel that way.

[attica]

10 hours ago, Quilt Fairy said:

And therein lies the problem. 

Ah, but it gives us (i.e. journos and law enforcement --such as it is these days) threads to pull, to actually examine what can be corroborated or not. It's valuable just for that. 

[TexasGal]

12 hours ago, freddi said:

Watching the repeat right now, and you are right.  He is blinking, but Rachel is certainly getting the death ray look from him.  I understand that he needs to have a poker face constantly, and I guess he decided to stare at Rachel and freeze his facial muscles.  

Adding a reply to this in small talk, as it's off topic for the episode thread but hilarious to me.

Also, I was surprised by Parnas not seeming like a 100% slimy piece of crap as I expected him to.

[ahisma]

12 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

What made me very suspicious (and Rach was very skeptical on this too) was Parnas' take on Hyde & this loon's stalker rantings on Amb. Yovanovitch.

I don’t know—the night before Rachel asked several times whether Hyde might be a fabulist, making up the whole Ukraine stalker thing. So she actually looks pretty prescient if Parnas is telling the truth.

The whole Yovanovitch situation needs to be investigated. It will be pretty easy to verify whether Hyde really is a drunken mess who spends all his time in the Trump Hotel lobby, as Parnas claims. But someone needs to look to see whether any communications and/or money were going back and forth to shady Ukraine characters. And someone needs to dig into why the ambassador did get that middle of the night phone call to flee. Even if Hyde was a poseur, per the Parnas interview, that doesn’t mean someone else wasn’t serious. (Check Putin’s record of poisonings / falls from great heights.) 

Loved Rachel getting to pull out her book research knowledge again. That is actually why I think Parnas went with her—he knows she really understands the Russia-Ukraine situation in depth.

[ScoobieDoobs]

"He fired her many times, but she wouldn't leave."  OK, that quote was repeated by Rach & put in a graphic at the bottom.  Well, that's wrong, Lev -- that's absolutely NOT what happened.  And why did you quote this, Rach & put it in a graphic?  Wish Rach would have clearly corrected this right after she showed him saying it.  OK, she did eventually, but it bothered me.

"That's not the only time he fired her."  It was an odd way of Lev phrasing what happened.  But at least Rach did emphasize how he ordered her fired & nobody carried it out for at least a year.

Did Lev guarantee Rach first crack at interviewing him?  Guess he didn't give her any exclusivity cuz he went right over to blab to Anderson..  Except Anderson's convo with him was dull, & it was cut up in a way that made it all seem much less dramatic than it is.  Actually, AC's piss-poor, ineffective interview with Lev spotlighted what a great job Rachel did here. 

Rachel has a history of being soft & weak in interviews.  But she was absolutely on point with Lev.  And her producers did some great editing & Rachel's narration was totally on target & clear.  Honestly, I think she deserves an Emmy for this.

[ahisma]

All I can say is a-maz-ing. This interview is going to be one of the big moments in history for this impeachment.

All the lawsuits and FOIA requests that have brought out important paperwork are critical, but there is absolutely nothing like seeing/hearing someone in the know, on camera, spilling it all. There hasn’t been an impact like this since the witnesses on camera in the House Intelligence hearings. 

[shok]

Rachel had the second highest rated cable show of the night last night...not cable news show...cable show period! Way to go Rach!

[meowmommy]

20 hours ago, shok said:

Rachel had the second highest rated cable show of the night last night...not cable news show...cable show period! Way to go Rach!

Rachel reaches record audience with Parnas interview

Quote

There's no apparent impeachment fatigue among viewers of MSNBC's Rachel Maddow.

Her prime-time show, which has been on for more than 11 years, had its largest audience ever when 4.5 million people watched Maddow's interview on Wednesday with Lev Parnas, an associate of Rudy Giuliani, President Donald Trump's personal lawyer.

The Nielsen company said Maddow topped Fox News Channel's Sean Hannity, who usually has the top-rated cable news show. He had 3.7 million viewers that night.

 

[freddi]

In the handoff to Rachel on Friday’s show, Chris Hayes said that her interviews with Parnas had been added to the documentary evidence for the impeachment trial, like all the text messages, etc.  She is now part of legislative history.  

[ScoobieDoobs]

Again, I watched Lev with Anderson Cooper (who I like), but it did make me wonder why his interview was so off & ineffective -- and Rachel's interview with Lev was probably the best of her career.

What I noticed, which really surprised me, is that Lev seems kinda smart.  His looks & manner are misleading.  I figured he'd barely be able to put 2 words together & he'd be cagey as hell.  He was the total opposite.  He was very straight-forward with Rach, and even articulate & sharp.  His observations were consistent with what is known, but they showed him to be intuitive & really worth listening to. 

I was ready to dismiss Lev as too shady & not credible or worthy of paying any attention to.  So kudos to Rach that she didn't do that & she realized just how valuable this interview was for her to do.  And she also squelched any reflex she may have had to mock Lev, which couldn't have been easy.  Good move, Rach, cuz it led to an extremely informative interview -- much more so than Anderson's was.

But really . . . who in any media now is better equipped than Rachel to handle an interview with a character like Lev?  Anderson?  Oh please.  When Rachel said she had a few questions for Pompeo, I thought -- Oh, how I would luv for you to interview that POS, Rach!

Edited January 18, 2020 by ScoobieDoobs

[shok]

1 hour ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Again, I watched Lev with Anderson Cooper (who I like), but it did make me wonder why his interview was so off & ineffective -- and Rachel's interview with Lev was probably the best of her career.

What I noticed, which really surprised me, is that Lev seems kinda smart.  His looks & manner are misleading.

 

Rachel's interview was so much better because Dr. Maddow is way way smarter than Anderson, plus she does her homework. I doubt there is another journalist who knows as much about Russia and its politics as Rachel does both from her work for her show plus her books that she has published. Regardless of how smart and knowledgeable she is, Rachel has always had the ability to tell a complicated story in a way that most ordinary people can follow and understand, which is why she is a/the top rated anchor in cable news.

Anderson Cooper on the other hand is very superficial and his interviews lack depth. He just goes along with the meme of the day and the talking points that CNN is regurgitating. I'm sure Lev Parnas was smart enough to know the difference between the two and knew that he had to be on top of his game or Rachel would trip him up on any inconsistencies.

[ScoobieDoobs]

For me, the comparison of Lev’s interviews with Rach & AC was not about slamming AC.  Just thought it really highlights how Rachel has been so prepared for this interview.  Her book touched on many of the characters Lev dealt with & she’s been talking about this stuff every nite for years now, trying to make sense of it & asking the same questions she was asking Lev.

AC’s producers (and maybe CNN too) sliced up his interview with Lev & destroyed much of any impact it may have had.  Didn’t matter anyway.  Nobody can compare with how ready Rachel was.  That’s why I’d love for her to face down Pompeo.  Oh, you can be sure that smiling fuck is scared shitless to face Rachel.