Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
AmandaPanda

All Episodes Discussion: 2017 Season

Recommended Posts

Congressman Maloney's idea for Democratic representatives to adopt a district was wonderful!  My representative never shows up for town halls and flat out lied to me about her vote.  The day I called her she said she was undecided.  The very next morning the paper reported that she had been helping to whip votes for the damn thing.  Her actions weren't surprisingly but I am nevertheless quite pissed.  2018, here we come!

Can't wait for Monday and Sally Yates.  Even if she doesn't have any bombshells it's good she's finally getting a public hearing.

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post

Good on Rachel for trying to get Schiff and Axelrod to tell her what the 'underlying conduct' was. I mean, yeah, neither of them were going to say, but you really gotta ask since they're sitting right there.

Speaking of Axelrod, you don't often hear (or at least I don't/haven't) a dude express that much open admiration for his woman boss. Usually it gets underlaid with some kind of 'can you believe a woman did good?' condescension, but not here. I'm having feels.

And I'd like to withdraw my casting suggestion of Tig Notaro for Yates. After watching her testimony, you really gotta have Holly Hunter. Put her in a short wig and let's do this!

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe I'm losing my mind, but there don't appear to be any commercial breaks during the show tonight and we're 46 minutes in. Behold the power of Rachel! Maybe they'll let her go over time and start talking about the Grand Jury subpoenas just issued around the Flynn investigation. Oh, please, please, please.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, maystone said:

Maybe I'm losing my mind, but there don't appear to be any commercial breaks during the show tonight and we're 46 minutes in. Behold the power of Rachel! Maybe they'll let her go over time and start talking about the Grand Jury subpoenas just issued around the Flynn investigation. Oh, please, please, please.

I think Chris Hayes' show also was commercial-free.  This is a BIG story.  I'm old enough to remember the Saturday Night Massacre and I thought I'd never see anything like it again in my lifetime.  Wrong again.

  • Like 18

Share this post


Link to post

Rachael is rolling right into Lawrence.  They are doing this together.  This is huge.  And scary. 

Edited by wings707
  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, clb1016 said:

I think Chris Hayes' show also was commercial-free.  This is a BIG story.  I'm old enough to remember the Saturday Night Massacre and I thought I'd never see anything like it again in my lifetime.  Wrong again.

Yup, I finally heard her say that it was a special report. I should have figured.

I remember the Saturday Night Massacre, too. I keep thinking that things can't get worse with Trump, but they just continue to astound me. I follow a lot of journalists and intelligence community members on Twitter: the former were as gobsmacked as we are, but CI guys have been expecting something like this because the noose is tightening around Trump and his gang.  One of the big questions is whether Comey had the foresight to secure all the documents.

  • Like 14

Share this post


Link to post

I too am old enough to remember the Saturday Night Massacre and the beginning of the downfall of Nixon.  These are the moments when I am glad I tune into Rachel...she always lays out the facts.  This is scary, Trump thinks the President has "all the power"...lets hope we get an independent prosecutor/investigator.

  • Like 17

Share this post


Link to post

She asked a very compelling question. With Nixon, we had a democratic majority in Congress. What if Republicans decide to bury it? What if there is no special prosecutor? I think it's a real possibility. Scary times indeed.

ETA: I remember the Watergate hearings because I was in the hospital for almost 3 weeks having contracted Hepatitis B working as a Med Tech in a clinical lab. I watched the hearings on TV every day. It made an impression.

Edited by chessiegal
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
39 minutes ago, clb1016 said:

I think Chris Hayes' show also was commercial-free.  This is a BIG story.  I'm old enough to remember the Saturday Night Massacre and I thought I'd never see anything like it again in my lifetime.  Wrong again.

I think it's been commercial free coverage since Chuck Todd broke the news during MTP Daily. I was a little behind on my DVR and kept waiting for a chance to catch up.. Instead, I just skipped most of Hardball. I expected commercials to be begin again with Hayes and Maddow, but they never did. 

Then instead of a toss to Lawrence, Rachel and he had a long conversation which also included Pete Williams and Clint Watts. I'm still a half hour or so behind, but Rachel is still part of the 4-way split screen, at least 12 minutes into L O'D's hour. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

I was waiting desperately for a commercial break to take out the recycling (and pee), and...no commercial breaks. So how relieved was I when Tom Brokaw appeared? OMG so much. Which is something I never say about that eminence hacque.

I totally giggled at the Nixon Library tweet of the 'fun fact.' Which gave me a new appreciation of the work that library's staff have to do, to kind of highlight the accomplishments without shying away from the criminal wrongdoing. I suspect not every presidential library makes that choice.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

Oh, shut up Tom Brokaw.  He never disappoints so say something that I think is stupid.

Yeah, that was a long night - I kept waiting for a commercial during Chris Hayes to take my clothes out of the dryer and I realized it was 8:45 and not going to happen. 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, M. Darcy said:

Yeah, that was a long night - I kept waiting for a commercial during Chris Hayes to take my clothes out of the dryer and I realized it was 8:45 and not going to happen. 

DVR is my friend.  I'm expecting double commercials tonight to make up for it.  It was a huge news story but very surprised MSNBC was willing to give up prime time ad revenue for it.

2 hours ago, attica said:

I was waiting desperately for a commercial break to take out the recycling (and pee), and...no commercial breaks. So how relieved was I when Tom Brokaw appeared? OMG so much. Which is something I never say about that eminence hacque.

He tries to be the elder statesman of the press that Dan Rather has become, but just comes out as banal.  

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

So from Monday's show, I liked Rachel giving and getting as much info as she could about Flynn from Yates' testimony and Schiff.

I also love the new Democratic strategy and showing up at a neighboring Republican Congressman's district to "explain" their vote to repeal and replace the ACA/Obamacare.  Show those voters who really does care about you and will talk to you!

ETA: Tuesday's show.  Again, Rachel is giving good information and connecting all the dots about the investigations, the Russia connections, the email investigations, Session's recusing himself, yet continuing to put himself into the middle of Comey's investigations.  It truly is scary thinking about how the Reps may bury/ignore all this because trump is "their guy."

Edited by Hanahope
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, General Days said:

Is anyone else watching Rachel, right now? She's already made me regret my lack of alcohol. This is going to be a long one. 

I loved it.  

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, ButterQueen said:

I loved it.  

I ended up missing a lot, because of things going on here. I'm just getting back to the TV and now Lawrence is nearly a half hour in. What did I miss on Rachel, i.e. what did she discuss that you love?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, General Days said:

I ended up missing a lot, because of things going on here. I'm just getting back to the TV and now Lawrence is nearly a half hour in. What did I miss on Rachel, i.e. what did she discuss that you love?

She had quite a bit of breaking news.  She repeats at midnight, I think.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Did she cover anything new that isn't out there, already? Part of my problem is I always have the TV on while I work, so I've gleaned a lot of stuff over the course of the day. By the time Rachel gets to her well-constructed piece, I'm all, "GET TO THE PUNCHLINE," even though I think she's doing necessary and admirable work. 

In other words, @ButterQueen, thank you, but I don't want to watch again. I was wondering what she said that you loved. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

My favorite in the show tonight was the interview with author Tim Weiner, who wrote a book about the history of the FBI.  It was like so yippee, to me, we're gonna have an impeachment!  However, that probably means the dems have to get control of the congress in 2018.

Edited by stormy
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, General Days said:

Did she cover anything new that isn't out there, already? Part of my problem is I always have the TV on while I work, so I've gleaned a lot of stuff over the course of the day. By the time Rachel gets to her well-constructed piece, I'm all, "GET TO THE PUNCHLINE," even though I think she's doing necessary and admirable work. 

In other words, @ButterQueen, thank you, but I don't want to watch again. I was wondering what she said that you loved. 

I love how she puts it all in a nutshell for me.  

There were a few new things I hadn't heard, and I'm sure we will hear them again tomorrow.

15 minutes ago, stormy said:

My favorite in the show tonight was the interview with author Tim Weiner, who wrote a book about the history of the FBI.  It was like so yippee, to me, we're gonna have an impeachment!  However, that probably means the dems have to get control of the congress in 2018.

....and the WP writer who had 30 sources that the FBI is more determined than ever to continue this investigation.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

Was it the night before last that Elijah Cummings was on?  So much has happened the last couple of days I've lost track.  Anyway, I just love him and share his exasperation at that hypocrite Chaffetz and his refusal to issue subpoenas to the WH for Flynn's vetting information.  I hope Rachel continues to give Cummings the space to air the issue and give it the attention it deserves. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Just want to chime in and ITA about Tom Brokaw...what a grumpy old man...sheesh, I wish NBC/MSNBC would quit bringing him out as some 'expert/legend journalist"...he was good back in the day, but now, he just annoys me.  I saw Dan Rather on CNN(Don Lemon's show) and he is still good at being an honest journalist.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

I feel much the same about Brokaw, although he was the only one on the whole show who pointed out Trump's ridiculous sentence in the letter about "I appreciate that you told me three times I wasn't under investigation." This guy is a three year old with crumbs around his mouth trying to say the dog got into the cookie jar—laughably transparent.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

I wish I had a better handle on the legal definition of recusal. I wish Rachel could break it down for me (us) re: her being disturbed about whether or not Sessions is also recused from anything to do with Manafort. I admit I was really tired last night, so maybe she did make it clear, and I just couldn't put the pieces together. If I have this straight:

1. Manafort didn't actually register as an agent of a foreign power.

2. Pompeo ( director of the CIA) will neither confirm or deny that they're trying to turn or have turned Manafort.

3. Pompeo is a Trump appointee and a partisan Republican

4. If Sessions is not recused from dealing with the Manafort issue, he de facto has a hand in how the Trump/Russia investigation moves forward.

5. Sessions and Pompeo are working together to stop or seriously hinder the investigation?

I dunno.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Excellent line up of guests last night. I learned something new from every one; they were all informative and illuminating. And certainly a nice contrast to the chorus of 'nuh-uh!' from the official spoxes.

I have no doubt that real spies called them 'secret squirrel boxes.' Because I would too if I were a spy.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

I think Rachel reached the peak WTFness last night. But Trump admitted he did it this morning so she should probably pace herself for tonight. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, attica said:

I have no doubt that real spies called them 'secret squirrel boxes.' Because I would too if I were a spy.

In the Air Force, we used to refer to the special reconnaissance planes and their crews as "secret squirrel" stuff.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Rachel's question tonight-- "This is, like, this is heading toward the end, right? It has to be, right?"--reminded me of Michael Che as Lester Holt on SNL this week: "Did I get him? Is this all over?" Unfortunately, the answer is probably the same, too--no because nothing matters anymore.

  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post

I noticed the last few nites Rach has been spending a few minutes chatting with LOD into his show -- much longer than the few seconds they have in the past.  Is this her way of saying she doesn't want MSNBC to give him the boot?

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

I noticed the last few nites Rach has been spending a few minutes chatting with LOD into his show -- much longer than the few seconds they have in the past.  Is this her way of saying she doesn't want MSNBC to give him the boot?

I think Rachel is just super friendly by nature. I think she could chat like that with anyone, including someone she does not like or respect. She has an incredible ability to separate the person from their views. I believe it's part of her success in general and is something I admire in her. So I don't think she wants anyone to lose their show, including Lawrence.

Having said that, I do think she personally likes Lawrence so she may wish him the best even more than she may wish on others.

Edited by Complexity
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

I read a comment that MSNBC has never run a promo for Last Word--and this week I noticed Chris Hayes tweeting this one for him, Rachel and Lawrence.

Rachel is going to be on Seth Meyers tonight.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Tonight's Seth Meyers show is a repeat.  Meyers only goes live Mon-Thurs; Fri is always a rerun.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/18/2017 at 6:08 PM, ScoobieDoobs said:

I noticed the last few nites Rach has been spending a few minutes chatting with LOD into his show -- much longer than the few seconds they have in the past.  Is this her way of saying she doesn't want MSNBC to give him the boot?

I think they just like each other, and Lawrence engages with her. She's not super chatty with Chris or any of LOD's subs.

Was anyone else kind of concerned about Rachel literally spelling out for Trump how he can make the investigation go away? I know he probably doesn't watch MSNBC, but still. We don't live in a world where he wouldn't use that advice.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, skittl3862 said:

Was anyone else kind of concerned about Rachel literally spelling out for Trump how he can make the investigation go away?

Nope. He has WH lawyers, plus is reported to be privately lawyering up. Rachel didn't report any secrets on the matter. If he did any of the things she outlined, we're talking more reasons for impeachment.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, skittl3862 said:

I think they just like each other, and Lawrence engages with her. She's not super chatty with Chris or any of LOD's subs.

Was anyone else kind of concerned about Rachel literally spelling out for Trump how he can make the investigation go away? I know he probably doesn't watch MSNBC, but still. We don't live in a world where he wouldn't use that advice.

You and me both.  I kept shouting out (in my head), "Don't give him all the details! Just shut up!"

In a totally unimportant side note, I could not figure out what was wrong with the jacket she was wearing tonight.  It was bunching up in all sorts of odd places, like it wasn't her correct size. There's something wrong when I notice how her jacket fits.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

It sure sounds like while they can do some investigation, so much won't get done while the GOP controls Congress.  The Justice dept won't really do anything while controlled by trump.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

On 5/21/2017 at 11:16 AM, Hanahope said:

It sure sounds like while they can do some investigation, so much won't get done while the GOP controls Congress.  The Justice dept won't really do anything while controlled by trump.

I don't believe this at all.  The FBI has named a special prosecutor.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, ButterQueen said:

I don't believe this at all.  The FBI has named a special prosecutor.

Its a special counselor, not prosecutor.  Different position.  the counselor can be fired by trump.  I believe "special prosecutor" is a position hired by the Justice Dept and cannot be fired by trump (I think there's some unique law about this).  The FBI are the cops, the Justice Dept. is the prosecutors.

Even if the FBI finds what appears to be sufficient evidence, prosecution is either done by the Justice Dept (criminal) or House of Representatives (impeachment).  Both are currently under GoP control.

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Hanahope said:

Its a special counselor, not prosecutor.  Different position.  the counselor can be fired by trump.  I believe "special prosecutor" is a position hired by the Justice Dept and cannot be fired by trump (I think there's some unique law about this).  The FBI are the cops, the Justice Dept. is the prosecutors.

Even if the FBI finds what appears to be sufficient evidence, prosecution is either done by the Justice Dept (criminal) or House of Representatives (impeachment).  Both are currently under GoP control.

Pardon my mistake.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Ah, poor Rach.  She has tons & tons & tons of Trump news/stories to talk about.  But she can't.  Clearly, NBC big shots won't let her.  MSNBC & CNN & even Fox will cover this Manchester story for days & days & days, non-fucking-stop, without taking a break from it.  Can someone explain why these news organizations do this?  Seems so exceptionally tastelessly exploitative to me.  Sure, stories like this are horrible & absolutely worth covering -- but non-stop?  I don't get it.  Especially now, when there are equally vitally important political stories they need to be covering.  Sheesh, take a fucking break from covering this, PLEASE!

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Ah, poor Rach.  She has tons & tons & tons of Trump news/stories to talk about.  But she can't.  Clearly, NBC big shots won't let her.  MSNBC & CNN & even Fox will cover this Manchester story for days & days & days, non-fucking-stop, without taking a break from it.  Can someone explain why these news organizations do this?  Seems so exceptionally tastelessly exploitative to me.  Sure, stories like this are horrible & absolutely worth covering -- but non-stop?  I don't get it.  Especially now, when there are equally vitally important political stories they need to be covering.  Sheesh, take a fucking break from covering this, PLEASE!

No kidding - especially when there is no new information - just endless rehashing of the same info while showing the same footage over and over. I guess execs think that if they don't do the endless coverage, folks will switch to channels that are. Wrong for us. We switched to Food Network and HGTV.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post

I totally agree, ScoobieDoobs & chessiegal.  Give an update every 15 minutes or so - "Here's the latest from Manchester".  They've reported that it's happened, that some people are dead, some people are injured, and it's believed to be an act of terrorism.  There really isn't anything else to report.  So they pull out their terrorism experts (what do people get paid for being on call for something like this, anyway?) and they all speculate endlessly about who did this, why they did it, what potentially could happen next, and more blah blah blah to take up air time.  And the endless loop of shaky cell phone video was giving me a migraine - I had to turn it off. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

I wonder what her ratings were tonight. I saw the news of the Manchester attack around 6 pm ET on Twitter, and we tuned to CNN. They were doing Trump coverage. Checked back at 6:30 and 7, same thing. Turned to MSNBC at 8, and Chris Hayes seemed to indicate there would be political coverage, and that didn't happen. So it took the 24/7 news networks 2 hours to gear up to endless repetition, so it seems. Disappointing.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

She has tons & tons & tons of Trump news/stories to talk about.  But she can't.  

She just tweeted that she'll have it for us tomorrow, "no worries".

Share this post


Link to post

Not only Russi-a-Lago stories, but the Middle East visit, the Trump federal budget, the health (don't)care bill CBO scoring, the wrecking of Dodd-Frank, the continued deportations, the gutting of net neutrality and of environmental protections, the Texas anti-trans bill .... There's so much going on that affects thousands to hundreds of thousands of lives. Taking up the whole show on a single incident that we know nothing about is frustrating. 

3 hours ago, Calvada said:

Give an update every 15 minutes or so - "Here's the latest from Manchester".  They've reported that it's happened, that some people are dead, some people are injured, and it's believed to be an act of terrorism.  There really isn't anything else to report. 

THIS!!! So. Much. This. It's not ongoing, there are no answers yet—let us know when there's actually news.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/19/2017 at 7:32 PM, Quilt Fairy said:

In a totally unimportant side note, I could not figure out what was wrong with the jacket she was wearing tonight.  It was bunching up in all sorts of odd places, like it wasn't her correct size. There's something wrong when I notice how her jacket fits.

WHAT was with that jacket??? It was as if she mussed her regular one & the only replacement was some dude's, 6 sizes too big. I was so distracted by it, & I'm not normally one to pay any attention to clothing on shows.

Share this post


Link to post

Stephanie Miller is such a huge Rachel fan. (As well as a Chris Hayes and Lawrence fan too) she spent quite a bit of time this morning with her guest Bob Cesca, discussing Rachel's rise in the tv ratings (take that, Sean Hannity, they said).

Turns out that Rachel was called out, by name, by the right wingers for pushing conspiracies about fake news about trump's selling that mansion to a Russian fertilizer king.  Rachel stuck with the story and trump people had to admit it was all true.

Rachel's becoming our Bernstein and Woodward.

However, I practically have an anxiety attack every night watching because it just doesn't seem possible that all this is real and I'm pretty pissed at the CIA and the FBI for not being forthcoming when they could have before the election and all the republicans that keep cheering him on.

  • Like 17

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, stormy said:

Stephanie Miller is such a huge Rachel fan. (As well as a Chris Hayes and Lawrence fan too) she spent quite a bit of time this morning with her guest Bob Cesca, discussing Rachel's rise in the tv ratings (take that, Sean Hannity, they said).

Turns out that Rachel was called out, by name, by the right wingers for pushing conspiracies about fake news about trump's selling that mansion to a Russian fertilizer king.  Rachel stuck with the story and trump people had to admit it was all true.

Rachel's becoming our Bernstein and Woodward.

However, I practically have an anxiety attack every night watching because it just doesn't seem possible that all this is real and I'm pretty pissed at the CIA and the FBI for not being forthcoming when they could have before the election and all the republicans that keep cheering him on.

She has been doing a fantastic job!  I am hoping she wins some journalistic award once this is all said and done.  

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/22/2017 at 10:45 PM, chessiegal said:

I guess execs think that if they don't do the endless coverage, folks will switch to channels that are. Wrong for us. We switched to Food Network and HGTV.

I don't have the ability to sit and watch news for 3 hours a night.  So I'll watch/listen to Chris, Rachel and Lawrence on the website the next morning/afternoon while at work.  So I sat through Chris' entire show about Manchester yesterday morning.  Then about 15 minutes of Rachel.  I then moved the curser forward about 15 minutes.  Yup, still Manchester.  another 15 minutes, same thing.  Onto Lawrence, same deal. so I went on to another show. So at least I got through 3 hours of "news" in about 60 minutes total.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/24/2017 at 2:34 PM, Natalie68 said:

She has been doing a fantastic job!  I am hoping she wins some journalistic award once this is all said and done.  

Maybe she will get to tell the Trump...you're fired/impeached.  LOL 

She certainly is bringing so much important information to light.  She is must see tv.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size