All Episodes Talk: TRMS 2020 Season

[teddysmom]

2 minutes ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Don’t underestimate the power & influence Rachel (in particular) has — and I don’t mean if she mentions a story once & then never again.  I mean if she spotlights it relentlessly.  If she does this, the rest of media usually pays attention & follows.  Don’t worry, I’m sure Rachel will take this story into what we as citizens can do to help save the Postal Service — she already did this to a small degree.

And btw, I’m hearing that all of a sudden, multiple mailboxes are being mysteriously taken away everywhere — uh, seriously, gulp, what the fuckety fuck?  This is a story that underscores how horribly screwed we are with this administration in charge.  I feel at least a tiny bit better knowing Rach is all over this, rather than ANY of the other useless hosts on MSNBC or CNN.

Agree. I just saw Belarus was releasing everyone they took into custody. I don't know if UN stepped in but Rachel was all over this. 

And I did just see photos on Twitter of mail boxes being loaded into a truck. 

I was telling a coworker about the post office situation and honest to God, she told me she hadn't heard a thing about it.  I was like, you have got to pay attention to what's going on.  You don't have to watch CNN or MSNBC 12 hours a day, just turn it on for 30 minutes at some point so you know the situation in the country. 

JFC on a cracker. 

 

[ScoobieDoobs]

And notice that Rachel is not jokey in the least when discussing the Postal mess.  Er, so Susan Collins is “concerned” about it — that gets an annoyed eye roll from me.   Big woo, it’s way more important that Rachel is concerned about it.

Still hoping Rach follows up on Ms. Trumpy Lawyer she showed running (over & over & over) to get Kanye’s application in on time for the ballot in WI.  Apparently, the application was denied & now Kanye’s lawyer is trying to justify signatures from Mickey Mouse & Bernie Sanders as being real.  Oh Rach, ya gotta stay on this one!

Edited August 14, 2020 by ScoobieDoobs

[ScoobieDoobs]

14 hours ago, tres bien said:

It's great that on every MSNBC  show the hosts pound the USPS story like a drum. But how does that help us? 

I keep waiting for Rachel or someone to tell us what we, the people, can do. Because I feel helpless and seriously scared.

This actually affects me because we live in FL 6 months so we're legal residents and vote by mail.  I feel like I better hustle my butt back there and vote in person this year. 

 

Ah, I knew it!!!  Rachel heard you & answered you tonite!  Don’t think for a second Rach is leaving this alone . . .

[tres bien]

And yay Montana!

[freddi]

5 minutes ago, tres bien said:

And yay Montana!

As she was showing this, I was wondering, "why Montana?" -- it is so reliably conservative, and aren't they just cutting off Republican votes by doing this?  Then remembered -- ohhhh, a Democratic governor.  

Then heard Rachel say this was the plan for the whole country later.  This makes no sense -- it is not like the Republican votes will magically get filtered through to be counted.  (right?)  

[Calvada]

9 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

And notice that Rachel is not jokey in the least when discussing the Postal mess.  Er, so Susan Collins is “concerned” about it — that gets an annoyed eye roll from me.   Big woo, it’s way more important that Rachel is concerned about it.

Still hoping Rach follows up on Ms. Trumpy Lawyer she showed running (over & over & over) to get Kanye’s application in on time for the ballot in WI.  Apparently, the application was denied & now Kanye’s lawyer is trying to justify signatures from Mickey Mouse & Bernie Sanders as being real.  Oh Rach, ya gotta stay on this one!

One of the things that the Trump lawyer claimed in the attempt to get a waiver for submitting Kanye's paperwork past the deadline in Wisconsin was "interference by the media" as she entered the building.  We've all seen the video - there were a couple guys filming her as she walked into the building. No one blocked the door, tripped her, or did anything to prevent her from entering the building.  Maybe next time show up an hour early, not seconds before the deadline.  

OK, the USPS is not removing any more boxes.  Are they putting the ones they removed back?  And more importantly, will mail deposited in boxes be picked up?  Processed?  Delivered?  I planned on voting by mail, but assuming my ballot arrives, I will not return it by mail.  My city has ballot drop off sites; for the election that was held last week, they also had some drive-up ballot drop sites.  Even if I mail my ballot a month before the election, I have zero confidence that it would arrive in time.  

Sen. Tester is right about how crucial mail delivery is to all Americans, especially rural Americans.  About 20% of Americans get prescriptions exclusively in the mail - seniors, veterans, those with chronic illnesses, and the aforementioned rural Americans.  I heard on a news report about this issue that every day 330,000 veterans receive a prescription via the mail.  Aren't large portions of these groups thought to be conservative, more inclined to vote Republican?  In attempting to stop Democrats from voting by mail, they are taking actions that are hurting their base.  

[tres bien]

My situation is probably a lot different than most people that vote by mail or are planning to this year.

We receive our ballots by mail because we requested that after becoming FL residents however, there's  no reason that we can't hop on a plane at anytime and go back to FL to drop off our ballots at the county election office,  be there for early voting or on election day. Most people don't have that option. 

When Rachel said 46 states had received letters from the USPS warning them that because of their timelines, they couldn't guarantee the ballots would get back and forth in time I'm screaming,  do something states! What are you waiting for? This plan is diabolical and you can stop it now!  State AG's unite!

Edited August 15, 2020 by tres bien

[ScoobieDoobs]

OK, yes, everyone in media is now covering the Postal Service sabotage story, but I still get very anxious & nervous if Rachel isn’t on.  And seeing her, all smiles & jokey & happy, making dull & forced convo with Joy & Nicole for a few seconds at a time, interspersed btw the mostly boring Dem convention coverage doesn’t cut it.

Rachel’s coverage of the Postal Service sabotage has been inspiring & intelligent.  The rest of media seems panicked & disjointed — and I worry it’ll be too easy for many to discount & ignore it.

And the Senate just released extremely disturbing info confirming the Trump 2016 campaign connections to Russia — exactly what Rach has been talking about for 3 and a half years, and NOBODY in media is covering this!  To see Rach laughing & jokey & NOT discussing this tonite?  Oh no, I can’t.

[ScoobieDoobs]

She gave Brian Stelter way too much time!  Er, did she even discuss the lying Postmaster's crap performance for the Senate at all?  Why?  So was I right, & the Senate report that came out last week just got lost cuz it came out during the convention?  There's soooo much in there to dissect -- will she ever get to it?  Uh, and what about the slimeball Postmaster appearing before the House on Monday?  Will this get lost in the assured lunacy of next week's convention coverage.  Hope not. 

Focus, Rachel -- please -- cuz if MSNBC forces you to cover every crazy thing we know is gonna be said next week, you'll get lost in the sauce in this shit.  OMG, I hope to the heavens Rachel is all over what I expect to be a very enlightening Monday.  I'm so looking forward to some great Rachel snark on that always-smiling, sleazy Postmaster!

 

Edited August 22, 2020 by ScoobieDoobs

[tres bien]

I'm guessing there will be no regular night time programming Monday thru Friday next week.  That's unfortunate. 

So we won't see Rachel till next Friday.

 

 

[meowmommy]

8 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

She gave Brian Stelter way too much time! 

I don't think she gave Brian Stelter too much time.  I think she gave her own dramatic reading of his book way, way, way too much time.  Have said it before and will say it again:  she has fallen in love with her own narrative voice.  She probably spent twice as much time reading from the book than she did interviewing the author.  And I'm not sure he's that thrilled that she shared so much of his book that I feel like I don't even need to read it myself now.

In the previous hour, Chris Hayes had Jeffrey Toobin on, and I thought, since when do CNN guys go on MSNBC, but just like Brian Stelter, Jeff has a book to plug.  (Which I've been waiting for three weeks in the queue at the library to check out.)  But unlike Rachel, Chris let his guest tease his book instead of spilling it all over the pavement.

Edited August 22, 2020 by meowmommy

[ScoobieDoobs]

Yeah, I meant she gave way too much time to promoting his book. The Stelter segment shoulda been 5 or 10 minutes — no more.  The point coulda been made & proven quickly that Fox News is NOT a dependable source for facts & Trump has made it his source for everything in his Presidency.  Not exactly surprising, but it is certainly confirmation of what was expected. 

So this past week, in the few minutes Rachel was on, she & Nicole & Joy did discuss the Senate report briefly.  I’m very disappointed she didn’t mention it at all on Friday.  Will next week roll out in a similar way?  The 3 of them & Brian Williams preempt regular shows with all-nite coverage of the GOP convention?  Ew, that I’ll skip, thanks.

I suspect the awful Postmaster appearing before the House on Monday is gonna be vitally important.  And that Rach won’t have a show devoted to discussing it cuz her show will be thrown over to cover the lunacy of the GOP convention?  Ugh, that deeply troubles me.

I mean, c’mon, MSNBC, you’re really gonna force Rachel to cover Chachi giving a speech?  Really?  Her regular show should be on instead!

Edited August 22, 2020 by ScoobieDoobs

[meowmommy]

2 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

And that Rach won’t have a show devoted to discussing it cuz her show will be thrown over to cover the lunacy of the GOP convention?  Ugh, that deeply troubles me.

I'm assuming that, like with the DNC convention, Rachel, Nicolle and Joy will be on before and after.  No law says they can only talk about the RNC lunacy.  

What I miss more than anything over the past few months (other than the ability to go where I want when I want without fear of catching a deadly disease), is seeing the legal eagles like Chuck and Barb and Joyce regularly appearing on TRMS.  There are still a lot of legal concerns out there and these are the go-to people to talk about those concerns.

And every time Rachel shows a clip, however brief, of 45, as she did last night, I immediately think, "ScoobieDoobs is not going to like this!"  😸

[ScoobieDoobs]

Ha!  The diff with Rachel is that she rarely plays Trump clips & she’s not dependent on playing ‘em — big diff from all the mostly loser men of MSNBC, whether it’s Chuck Toad, Williams, Melber, Hayes or LOD (who’s def not a loser).  

I really loved how Rachel ended the show on Friday, by giving a taste of what it's gonna be like next week -- there's not much planning going on, no planned list of speakers & it seems like they're mostly gonna wing it.  Recipe for disaster much?  Rachel certainly seems up for the snark potential, which I'll be more than happy to listen to, but watching this thing?  Uh-uh, not for me, thanks.

Edited August 23, 2020 by ScoobieDoobs

[Quilt Fairy]

On 8/22/2020 at 12:36 PM, meowmommy said:

What I miss more than anything over the past few months (other than the ability to go where I want when I want without fear of catching a deadly disease), is seeing the legal eagles like Chuck and Barb and Joyce regularly appearing on TRMS.  There are still a lot of legal concerns out there and these are the go-to people to talk about those concerns.

You might want to check out the podcast "Talking Feds" hosted by former federal prosecutor Harry Littman.  He has those folks (and others) on frequently, although unfortunately his show does not come out on a regular basis. 

[Robert Lynch]

I will love Rachel's criticism on the RNC. 

[izabella]

On 8/22/2020 at 9:56 AM, ScoobieDoobs said:

So this past week, in the few minutes Rachel was on, she & Nicole & Joy did discuss the Senate report briefly.  I’m very disappointed she didn’t mention it at all on Friday.  Will next week roll out in a similar way?

She did spend some time talking about the report last week before one of the convention shows.  But, you are correct.  The report has been overshadowed by the conventions, which might be why it was released right then, and has pretty much disappeared from view.  I think the general public is over that kind of news anyway since the impeachment led to nothing.

 

On 8/22/2020 at 2:07 PM, ScoobieDoobs said:

I really loved how Rachel ended the show on Friday, by giving a taste of what it's gonna be like next week -- there's not much planning going on, no planned list of speakers & it seems like they're mostly gonna wing it.  Recipe for disaster much?  Rachel certainly seems up for the snark potential, which I'll be more than happy to listen to, but watching this thing?  Uh-uh, not for me, thanks.

She was pretty giggly and giddy about it, but I think she's wrong.  They have the Apprentice producers working on it, so it will likely be as slick as all the GOP campaign advertising usually is.

Edited August 24, 2020 by izabella

[ScoobieDoobs]

3 hours ago, izabella said:

She was pretty giggly and giddy about it, but I think she's wrong.  They have the Apprentice producers working on it, so it will likely be as slick as all the GOP campaign advertising usually is.

I suspect Rach was thinking about how a "speech" from Jr. (or Trump babbling idiocy for endless hours) would provide her with lots of snark op for her next show -- which is what?  Friday?  Think I'll take a vacay from MSNBC & CNN till then, thanks.  And btw, I also think Rach was dead wrong to be so giddy, cuz while I won't be watching, she has to cover the lunacy for 4 days.  Will she be so giddy next Friday as she was last Friday?  Maybe not.

[ahisma]

“A pageant about a convention”—good description.
 

It was so weird hearing the soaring orchestral score that’s used for convention coverage played in the background while Rachel read off the litany of legal cases in process against the Trumps. I couldn’t watch much, had to tap out after Guilfoyle’s one-sided shouting match. 

[ScoobieDoobs]

You know, Rachel was on for a few moments at 9, so I thought the lunkheads in charge over at MSNBC actually came to their dimwitted senses & let Rach do her show, instead of broadcasting the RNC lunacy -- but alas, no.  Yes, we did get some priceless puzzled looks on Rachel's face as she showed that woman screaming her head off to no crowds.  She looked & sounded insane -- proving nobody but Trump can get away with the shit he does.  And even he looks crazy doing the loony shit he does.  So what did Rach say about this?  Idk or care.  I don't even want to look at the commentary on this garbage.  I did like her puzzled looks tho!

[M. Darcy]

Michael Cohen tweeted - and Rachel confirmed it - that’s he’s going to be on her show. But they didn’t say when. 

[ScoobieDoobs]

On 8/25/2020 at 5:01 PM, M. Darcy said:

Michael Cohen tweeted - and Rachel confirmed it - that’s he’s going to be on her show. But they didn’t say when. 

He just tweeted Sept. 8th.  Will she be able to squelch a disgusted look (on her face) at this creep?  Would we even want her to?

[meowmommy]

1 hour ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

He just tweeted Sept. 8th.  Will she be able to squelch a disgusted look (on her face) at this creep?  Would we even want her to?

That's the release date of his book.  Presumably Rachel's going to read us the entire contents before then. 

[ScoobieDoobs]

OK, I did like Rach trolling Trump by poking at him on his crappy ratings, which were not only way worse than the DNC’s, but also worse than his last RNC speech & many, many other previous RNC speeches.

And her coverage on the latest on COVID was good.  I hadn’t heard anywhere else how bad it is in Iowa now.  I just wish she’d get back to coverage of the Postal Service & the Senate report stories.  That got lost in convention coverage.

[freddi]

I did like that she couldn't wait to remark on Steve Schmidt's dog, even though he had just delivered such a blistering indictment (normal for him).  But that dog posed on the sofa behind him like "I can lounge here because you are on the TV and can't do a thing about it."  

I expected all those week-long convention anchors to take today off after who knows how many hours they worked this week -- but they were on board for their shows, Rachel, Nicolle, Brian.  Rachel did say twice last night that she was fueled by peanut butter cups.  Like I needed another reason to like her.  

 

Edited August 30, 2020 by freddi

[M. Darcy]

I don’t think we ever had a dog or cat appearance before! 

[teddysmom]

On 8/29/2020 at 1:46 AM, freddi said:

Rachel did say twice last night that she was fueled by peanut butter cups. Like I needed another reason to like her.

I feel ya. For a while I was buying king size packages of Almond Joy ( 4 pc per pack) at the check out and they never made it home.  I may not be able to look at my phone while I drive but you'll get my Almond Joy when you pry it from my cold dead hand. 

 

On 8/29/2020 at 1:46 AM, freddi said:

But that dog posed on the sofa behind him like "I can lounge here because you are on the TV and can't do a thing about it."  

I was watching Morning Joe this morning I think and kept hearing a guest's dog whining and barking.   Yasmin on First Look has 3 Labs and she said the other morning she's reading copy on air and trying to keep either a dog or her toddler out of camera range with her leg. 

[tres bien]

Another book. More revelations.  More things that should make me appalled,  shocked and sickened. 

But none of it surprises me.  I'm numb from all of it because nothing ever changes.

It actually makes me worry that we're never going to escape this horror. 

[freddi]

24 minutes reading from the book and summarizing it -- and 10 minutes with the author.  Schmidt is not the most riveting speaker, but he is intense and knows what he is talking about.  I would have preferred more time with him, and less reading.

But a good line from Rachel was "Hide your ice cream" (what? I thought)  "He is a fearsome scooper."  

[meowmommy]

9 hours ago, freddi said:

24 minutes reading from the book and summarizing it -- and 10 minutes with the author. 

Somewhere along the way, somebody told her she was good at reading books and transcripts and now she's gone wild.  She's not that good.  She doesn't seem to know how to edit.  OTOH, at least this time she sort of acknowledged that she reads so much from the books she features that no one will feel the need to go out and buy them. 

She did this with Mary Trump.  She did this with Brian Stelter.  If she does this with Michael Cohen, I will be pissed beyond words. 

[teddysmom]

2 hours ago, meowmommy said:

Somewhere along the way, somebody told her she was good at reading books and transcripts and now she's gone wild.  She's not that good.  She doesn't seem to know how to edit.  OTOH, at least this time she sort of acknowledged that she reads so much from the books she features that no one will feel the need to go out and buy them. 

She did this with Mary Trump.  She did this with Brian Stelter.  If she does this with Michael Cohen, I will be pissed beyond words. 

Is she trying to set the stage, like hook people into watching? She doesn't need to do that.  I will say, in her defense, when she reads excerpts it grabs you a little more as you read along. Like "okay let this sink in a minute, then we'll talk to the author". 

At least it's not court transcripts. Those are the worst. 

[ScoobieDoobs]

2 hours ago, meowmommy said:

Somewhere along the way, somebody told her she was good at reading books and transcripts and now she's gone wild.  She's not that good.  She doesn't seem to know how to edit.  OTOH, at least this time she sort of acknowledged that she reads so much from the books she features that no one will feel the need to go out and buy them. 

She did this with Mary Trump.  She did this with Brian Stelter.  If she does this with Michael Cohen, I will be pissed beyond words. 

Yeah, the book reading has gotten way outta control, particularly when she has the author right there to ask questions.  What's with this, Rach?  Is it cuz she's basically a lousy interviewer & can't ask the author about these topics so he/she can speak about it?  I didn't think so.  Or is she so in love with reading this stuff in such a dramatic way?  Whatever it is, it's not working, Rach.  If you have an author there, ditch reading his/her book in an overly dramatic way & do your job & ask them questions, please! 

Btw, I'm still wondering why Joe hasn't granted Rachel an interview yet.  I'm thinking I'll get to interview Joe before Rach ever does . . .

[meowmommy]

1 hour ago, teddysmom said:

At least it's not court transcripts. Those are the worst. 

I don't mind the court transcripts, because especially in federal court, there are no recordings and no one's going to come out of there and tell you what was said, but even there, she is in dire need of editing.  Too many times she includes pleasantries and chit-chat and other extraneous material that we neither need to know about nor care about.  And long after the relevant information has been narrated, she keeps on going.  Is she afraid someone's going to accuse her of selective editing if she cuts out the crap?

As for the books, a little tease goes a long way.  Read a little, set it up for the interview.  Let the author tell the story.

55 minutes ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Btw, I'm still wondering why Joe hasn't granted Rachel an interview yet.  I'm thinking I'll get to interview Joe before Rach ever does . . .

I had asked that many times during the primaries and I think he's never coming.  There aren't a lot of upsides for him at this point, and a lot of potential downsides.

56 minutes ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Is it cuz she's basically a lousy interviewer

I'm starting to think that she is.  I can't remember her last interview where I felt like I'd sat down to a full meal, so to speak, and that includes two days with Lev Parnas that felt like a whole lot of nothing.  She isn't asking the questions I want answered.  I really am almost dreading the Michael Cohen interview.  I think Chris or LOD or Nicolle or even BriWi would do a better job, but Rachel is the network's marquee star.

[teddysmom]

 

6 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

I don't mind the court transcripts, because especially in federal court, there are no recordings and no one's going to come out of there and tell you what was said, but even there, she is in dire need of editing.

Yes I should have said that, it's not the transcripts per se, it's reading every little line, just get to the meat of the subject. 

Terri Gross on Fresh Air did a much better job interviewing Mary Trump. She had 40 plus minutes and she really delved into the family dynamics, how her father was treated, etc.  If you have a big get like a Mary Trump or Michael Cohen, clear the deck for God's sake and give them the hour.  

I'm wondering who's going to get an interview with Biden. Joy had Symone Sanders on and invited him on, Symone told her "call our booking dept", so maybe they'll get it set up with someone on the network.  

It'll be a pre taped prime time interview, I would imagine. 

 

[ScoobieDoobs]

I really enjoy her court transcript readings!  Her giving voice to that feisty judge on the Stone trial was a treat for me.  And spotlighting this no-nonsense judge on the Flynn case was good too.  But long book readings are a waste of precious show times.  Schmidt had an exclusive & important scoop about Trump's health.  Why not let him elaborate on it?  Poor production choice.

We'll see about Michael Cohen.  Look, we know Rach is a class act, but she made it pretty darn clear she thinks Cohen is a despicable, vile bully.  I'm curious how she'll be with him.  As far as getting anything outta him?  He's gonna be appearing everywhere, so me doubts it. 

Oh Rach, still chasing scoops & gotchas?  I commend the effort, but too often it has no effect in the Trump era.  Ugh, like with Lev.  Lev?  Who dat?  Eh, Rach will be helping the Dems if she continues doing what she's doing -- covering COVID & racial unrest, not playing stupid fucking Trump clips & more interviews with Kamala.  I also wish she'd encourage Biden to be campaigning everyday, all over those swing states.  You know, in all the times Rach had Hillary on, she NEVER once fessed up the real reason she probably lost was that Trump blitzed the midwest with ads in states she never even went to.

 

[tres bien]

2 hours ago, meowmommy said:

I don't mind the court transcripts, because especially in federal court, there are no recordings and no one's going to come out of there and tell you what was said, but even there, she is in dire need of editing.  Too many times she includes pleasantries and chit-chat and other extraneous material that we neither need to know about nor care about.  And long after the relevant information has been narrated, she keeps on going.  Is she afraid someone's going to accuse her of selective editing if she cuts out the crap?

As for the books, a little tease goes a long way.  Read a little, set it up for the interview.  Let the author tell the story.

I had asked that many times during the primaries and I think he's never coming.  There aren't a lot of upsides for him at this point, and a lot of potential downsides.

I'm starting to think that she is.  I can't remember her last interview where I felt like I'd sat down to a full meal, so to speak, and that includes two days with Lev Parnas that felt like a whole lot of nothing.  She isn't asking the questions I want answered.  I really am almost dreading the Michael Cohen interview.  I think Chris or LOD or Nicolle or even BriWi would do a better job, but Rachel is the network's marquee star.

Honestly I think this is true.

Last Thursday during the "pre game" show with Joy and Nicolle,  Mary Trump was on to be interviewed about  Auntie's tapes. Rachel was so unengaged, very low energy in her questions yet Joy and Nicolle were raring to go.

[teddysmom]

I do know that Rachel, according to an interview she did with Terri Gross, as well as one with Marc Maron, that she suffers from depression, so maybe that has something to do with appearing to not be engaged, etc at times?  

https://www.thefix.com/rachel-maddow-cyclical-depression

[Medicine Crow]

I'd rather she read the book than talk to Michael Schmidt ... he's so boring.  (I don't know what Nicolle sees in him!!)

[tres bien]

News flash Rachel.  None of this is a scandal.  Not Broidy. Not Melania. Nothing. 

It's just more crap that makes my head spin and quite frankly, I'm so sick of these people. 

And now comes the obligatory book reading ☹

Edited September 2, 2020 by tres bien

[freddi]

Lawrence O'Donnell, in the handoff, was still talking to Rachel when he said "when you were in the audiobook segment of your show," and that is exactly what it was. Again.  But she gave this author two segments; Michael Schmidt maybe needs longer to start to open up, and a good interviewer could have pried more perspective out of him in two segments.  

[meowmommy]

2 hours ago, tres bien said:

News flash Rachel.  None of this is a scandal.  Not Broidy. Not Melania. Nothing. 

Agree, agree, agree, a thousand times agree.  The world is going to hell in a handbasket and Rachel's devoting her show to the inaugural from four years ago? 

[shok]

6 hours ago, meowmommy said:

Agree, agree, agree, a thousand times agree.  The world is going to hell in a handbasket and Rachel's devoting her show to the inaugural from four years ago? 

No, she's devoting her show to the fraud and theft of millions and millions of dollars, many (or most) from foreign governments and entities, not to 'the inaugural'. I'm glad someone isn't letting this major crime go unforgotten and that Rachel is still, after four years, keeping it current and in the news, along with all the other crimes Trump and his cronies committed.

And I love her reading segments of books (and court proceedings). It's not just her reading of them that I enjoy, it's that she has such keen ability to pick out the parts that are most important - she find the nuggets in the streams of words.

[shok]

14 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

in all the times Rach had Hillary on, she NEVER once fessed up the real reason she probably lost was that Trump blitzed the midwest with ads in states she never even went to.

I can't believe this is still thrown around as the reason Hillary lost. Or that Hillary just wasn't liked enough. How many reports and investigations have to be released that the Russians were a huge factor in stealing that election. Rachel told us over and over and over again what the Russians were doing and yet most media still claim it's because Hillary was unlikeable!!! And the Russians are doing it again. There are stories coming out, Rachel has reported on a couple of them, that the Russians are a large part of the dissent and chaos being caused by them on the social media. Who do you think arranged for Trump supporters in trucks to invade Portland last weekend, who posted the call to arms to the militia groups in Kenosha, Wisconsin? It's the Russians! So if Rachel wants to read from a book that memorializes how foreign money financed Trump's inauguration, then go for it girl!

[meowmommy]

3 hours ago, shok said:

No, she's devoting her show to the fraud and theft of millions and millions of dollars, many (or most) from foreign governments and entities, not to 'the inaugural'. I'm glad someone isn't letting this major crime go unforgotten and that Rachel is still, after four years, keeping it current and in the news, along with all the other crimes Trump and his cronies committed.

And I love her reading segments of books (and court proceedings). It's not just her reading of them that I enjoy, it's that she has such keen ability to pick out the parts that are most important - she find the nuggets in the streams of words.

Going to have to agree to disagree on both your points. 

It's not a news flash that the Russians were involved in the inaugural and that dirty money was floating around.   Given the unrelenting stream of crime and outrage over the past four years, dredging up something that happened what to most Americans seems like eons ago may be morally satisfying, but it's going to do diddly squat in terms of changing the national consciousness.  

I don't mind her reading books and transcripts.  I mind her going on and on and on, in love with the sound of her own voice, and seemingly unable to edit down to the bare essentials.  If I were an author going on her show, I would be irritated that she reveals so much of what I wrote that the audience doesn't really need to read it for themselves.  Authors on book tours want you to tease their books just enough to get someone to want to read it, no more.  Worse, having the books read to us in excruciating detail comes across as not respecting the viewers enough to think we're going to understand either the content of the book or the subsequent interview without it.  Not everything, Rachel's A block notwithstanding, requires a longform buildup.

Just my $0.000000002.

[teddysmom]

17 hours ago, Medicine Crow said:

I'd rather she read the book than talk to Michael Schmidt ... he's so boring.  (I don't know what Nicolle sees in him!!)

I've kinda thought the same thing. Unless he has a really dry sense of humor which balances her wackiness. 

Chasten Buttigieg has been on Nicolle's show and Morning Joe and discussed the book without having the host read three pages from it. 

Of course it's probably not a barn burner like Schmidt's book, it's more about his journey of coming out, meeting and marrying Pete and the Presidential campaign.  

[M. Darcy]

Rachel has talked about the missing money since I think the day after the Inauguration.  Looks like we might be finally getting those answers.

[ScoobieDoobs]

9 hours ago, shok said:

I can't believe this is still thrown around as the reason Hillary lost. Or that Hillary just wasn't liked enough. How many reports and investigations have to be released that the Russians were a huge factor in stealing that election. Rachel told us over and over and over again what the Russians were doing and yet most media still claim it's because Hillary was unlikeable!!! And the Russians are doing it again. There are stories coming out, Rachel has reported on a couple of them, that the Russians are a large part of the dissent and chaos being caused by them on the social media. Who do you think arranged for Trump supporters in trucks to invade Portland last weekend, who posted the call to arms to the militia groups in Kenosha, Wisconsin? It's the Russians! So if Rachel wants to read from a book that memorializes how foreign money financed Trump's inauguration, then go for it girl!

It’s unknown what the impact of the Russian influence was or is now on voters.  What is known is Hillary’s campaign made very stupid mistakes, that in all her interviews with Rachel, she never mentioned.  Has nothing to do with her likability or winning the popular vote.

Right before the 2016 election, Trump’s campaign blitzed the Midwest swing states with ads & he made many appearances there.  Hillary never appeared there & her campaign didn’t match the ad spending of Trump & it was a fatal error.  Who cares about winning the popular vote?  To win the election, you gotta strategize to get the electoral college votes.  Hillary & her band of dopes fucked up badly.  Hopefully, Biden & Harris will not do the same.  To me, Rachel’s time is better spent continuously advising them to get over to those Midwest swing states & blanket them with ads.

Broidy?  I’m not even sure why Barr hasn’t squashed this one.  I’m very suspect on this being a distraction, cuz he’ll only get pardoned eventually anyway, so who the fuck cares?  Rach, please don’t take the bait & get too distracted by this — it’s only gonna end up going nowhere.  And again, Cohen is involved in this too?  I couldn’t believe Wolkoff mentioned him last night. Jeez, Cohen knows so much, will she really stick to this book reading shtick when she has him on?  Ugh.

Edited September 2, 2020 by ScoobieDoobs

[Robert Lynch]

How stupid was that Maine pastor and still doing sermons, plus a holding a wedding that infected everyone with Covid 19, leaving one 83 year old woman dead from Covid that had nothing to do with the wedding. How messed up can one individual like that be? Disgusting.

Edited September 3, 2020 by Robert Lynch

[tres bien]

I read Jeffrey Goldberg's article in The Atlantic earlier today. 

But it was while Rachel was reading it that I thought. wouldn't it be satisfying if that article would speak to those people that will never give him up?

[Quilt Fairy]

None of this news is new.  These incidents, in France and at Arlington, and the McCain comments, were reported years ago.  I don't understand why it's causing a fuss now.