All Episodes Discussion: 2017 Season

[attica]

I hope TRMS fully outs the fake source.  I feel like reporters protect identities to a bit-too-far degree. I mean, sure, you don't want to out people that give you good stuff. But the people that lie to you just so they can publicly refute it (like LePage), so that they can ratfuck you (like the Dan Rather thing), or so that they can use the 'deep background' stuff to publicly promote a dodgy agenda (like Cheney and his Iraq/WMD assertions) oughta be hoisted by a petard. (And CNN should have identified the reddit dude with the WWE v CNN gif, to boot.)

[izabella]

Has Reality Winner admitted that she is the source of that document that was given to the Intercept?  I thought she pled not guilty during a recent court appearance.

She works at the NSA....the place where Flynn worked and his appointed stooges worked (and still work?).  Maybe one of those stooges set her up, used her log-ins and computer, printer, etc., because this administration and Republicans in Congress have such a hard-on for investigating leaks rather than the actual election sabotage carried out most likely BY the administration with Russia in order to obfuscate their conspiracy with Russia.   So, they could have set up the whole thing in order to point fingers at supposed leakers and made her the scapegoat.  That same NSA person (Flynn stooge or Trump/Bannon/Jared stooge) could have fed the doctored document to Rachel. 

Edited July 7, 2017 by izabella

[attica]

1 hour ago, izabella said:

I thought she pled not guilty during a recent court appearance.

Eh, that's just the thing you do to buy time to see what kind of a case the prosecution can build. And if you can trade up with testimony later on. SOP, in other words, which doesn't have much to do with actual guilt or not-guilt. (I got my JD from Jack McCoy and Ben Stone: you can trust me! :))

It was charming to see Richard Engel all geeked up for his new show. Good on him!

[formerlyfreedom]

A reminder - stick to the show. This is not about what happens on other shows, articles on line or in print, past history, or the current administration, it's about the show and what's discussed on the show. Posts will be removed that are off topic, and warnings may be issued for off topic posts.

[ScoobieDoobs]

Wait, no Rach tonite???  Really?  Aw, shoot!

[ButterQueen]

On 7/2/2017 at 6:47 PM, TobinAlbers said:

Richard Engel show takes over on Friday's for the summer.  Rachel gets summer fridays off starting July 7th. 

BOO-!  ☹️

[Macbeth]

11 hours ago, teddysmom said:

I saw part of this and I'm a little confused. She referred to the documents that the alleged NSA leaker, Reality Winner, was arrested for sending to The Intercept, and I thought Winner admitted she did it.  Was the doc that Rachel got a copy of the leaked doc The Intercept published?  Why would someone send that to Rachel if it had already been published somewhere else.  Or did they take a copy of that doc and do something to it and send it to Rachel? 

I know I'm missing something here, I didn't see the whole story, but I've tried to find online what she was talking about with no luck. 

Yeah the document Rachel got was something that the Intercept published.  See Glenn Greenwald's response to Rachel's segment:

https://theintercept.com/2017/07/07/rachel-maddows-exclusive-scoop-about-a-fake-nsa-document-raises-several-key-questions/

[Medicine Crow]

I like Richard Engel & the fact that he's willing to shine the light in dark places (at his own peril).

[ButterQueen]

8 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Thank you for this.  Rachel's presentation last nite was muddled & unclear.  And once again, I lost patience & tuned out.  Look Rach, if you have something important to say . . . SAY IT & SAY IT CLEARLY!  Don't shlep out a long intro & talk about muddled shit that seemingly has no relevance.  Honestly Rach, you & your producers are making terrible choices by making your show difficult for viewers to watch & comprehend -- and to hold our interest.

WaPo has a story with a headline that says exactly what she shoulda said directly in 2 seconds -- Media, watch out!

Yeah, Rachel really missed the mark last night.  She went on and on about the bombshell info sent to her, and then switched to it's fake.  I was bored to death and my husband fell asleep.  Not her best night.  The Jeb Bush dissertation was also boring.  

[ahisma]

Quote

Yeah the document Rachel got was something that the Intercept published.  See Glenn Greenwald's response to Rachel's segment:

https://theintercept.com/2017/07/07/rachel-maddows-exclusive-scoop-about-a-fake-nsa-document-raises-several-key-questions/

No, the document Rachel got was a cut-paste job on the document The Intercept published, so it said different things. If Rachel had aired it, it would have been a new (and false) breaking story, not the (true) story The Intercept broke. 

The interesting news from the story you linked is that it looks like the document Rachel got was cut and pasted together from the version of the document The Intercept published, not put together before it was available to the public. 

[Kitty Redstone]

10 hours ago, Keepitmoving said:

I got it all, she gets long winded sometimes, but for the most part I like her presentation. Like she said in that Rolling Stone interview her style isn't for everyone. She never confuses me, as a matter a fact, I like listening to it and predicting where I think she's going with this introduction.

Agreed.  I enjoy how she weaves together what may seem like disparate (and sometimes obscure) facts and events and weaves them into one relevant story.

I appreciated Richard Engel's time in Rachel's spot tonight.  His report was disturbing, especially the poll showing that so many naive or downright cynical people view the Russian government as a friend or ally to the United States.  Because, no.  I'm so glad he graphically laid out the greed and brutality of that regime ... and the bravery and dedication of the people fighting to change it.

[ahisma]

8 hours ago, Kitty Redstone said:

Agreed.  I enjoy how she weaves together what may seem like disparate (and sometimes obscure) facts and events and weaves them into one relevant story.

I appreciated Richard Engel's time in Rachel's spot tonight.  His report was disturbing, especially the poll showing that so many naive or downright cynical people view the Russian government as a friend or ally to the United States.  Because, no.  I'm so glad he graphically laid out the greed and brutality of that regime ... and the bravery and dedication of the people fighting to change it.

I enjoy Rachel's story-weaving, too. I love learning about, or being reminded of, historical events that are either tied to the present or a metaphor for the current story. 

Richard came out of the gate on fire! His opening pulled no punches, and he kept the pressure on. Great show.

[jjj]

I thought the way she opened the fake-dox segment, she was teasing the person(s) who had prepared the document.  Someone has to have been watching for weeks and waiting for Rachel to implode with the false information.  Can you imagine the frustration of whoever that is?!  Especially after she started by sounding like she might be about to break a huge news story.  It was, but it was the anti-story. 

[BabyVegas]

Quote

Can you imagine the frustration of whoever that is?!

I wouldn't even kind of be surprised if she set up her segment exactly that way for exactly that reason. "I'm gonna bite! I'm gonna bite! I'm gonna take the bait you put out there and make a huge fool of myself on national TV...LOLNOPE." That segment felt like a threefer. First, she let her viewers know what was up with something that affects the credibility of the news media as a whole, second she sent up a flair to her colleagues, and third, she royally pissed off someone, somewhere, who thought she was about to buy it.

[jjj]

1 hour ago, BabyVegas said:

I wouldn't even kind of be surprised if she set up her segment exactly that way for exactly that reason. "I'm gonna bite! I'm gonna bite! I'm gonna take the bait you put out there and make a huge fool of myself on national TV...LOLNOPE." That segment felt like a threefer. First, she let her viewers know what was up with something that affects the credibility of the news media as a whole, second she sent up a flair to her colleagues, and third, she royally pissed off someone, somewhere, who thought she was about to buy it.

Yes, that was what I meant:  that she intentionally opened the show in an ambiguous way to tease whoever(s) sent that.  Fake expectations, all dashed within a few minutes. 

[movingtargetgal]

19 hours ago, jjj said:

First, she let her viewers know what was up with something that affects the credibility of the news media as a whole, second she sent up a flair to her colleagues, and third, she royally pissed off someone, somewhere, who thought she was about to buy it.

This is the way Rachel gives these guys the finger while remaining a class act.

[jjj]

1 hour ago, movingtargetgal said:

This is the way Rachel gives these guys the finger while remaining a class act.

Somehow, another quote was attributed to me!  (But I agree with it, and the other writer added the observation about a flare sent up.)

[attica]

Richard's coverage of Kara-Murza and the Magnitsky Act was a good foundation for this weekend's NYT scoop on DJTjr. And now that Iraq is claiming victory at Mosul, he'll have a ready-made story for this week's installment!

[teddysmom]

Quote

This is the way Rachel gives these guys the finger while remaining a class act.

Do we think The Intercept sent it to her? Did she piss someone there off? 

[car54]

Uh oh, Rachel's piece on Trump's lawyer last night evidently struck a nerve.

[TexasGal]

18 minutes ago, car54 said:

Uh oh, Rachel's piece on Trump's lawyer last night evidently struck a nerve.

Keep it klassy Kasowitz.

[car54]

His office just posted something saying he is going to apologize to the email person.    Pro Publica just updated.

[Calvada]

Kasowitz is really tiptoeing around the line of committing a felony.  Anyone sending an email with this type of language to a public official would be receiving a visit from law enforcement.  No wonder this guy hasn't managed to get his client to stop tweeting.  He's probably right at Trump's side, egging him on.  But let's give the guy a break.  It was almost 10:00 pm and he was tired, which apparently caused him to forget how to delete an unsolicited email from a stranger. 

On a totally different topic - Rachel just showed a shot of Sessions taking the oath at his confirmation hearing.  Does anyone else find it odd that he raises his right hand up above his head?  Don't most people raise their hand so it is level with their face when swearing an oath?  

[jjj]

YES!!!  Rachel will be hosting her show at the regular time on Friday -- and Richard Engle will take the following hour.  Here's hoping the news makes this worth her time.  I bet it does.

[ScoobieDoobs]

Oh man, Rach, good goin' on Kasowitz's thuggish crap!  Your line readings were AWESOME!  This story might have faded out quickly, but you kept it going -- so thanks, Rach.  Good job!  Now get back to shining a bright spotlight on cockroach Jared . . . pretty please?

[clb1016]

2 hours ago, Calvada said:

On a totally different topic - Rachel just showed a shot of Sessions taking the oath at his confirmation hearing.  Does anyone else find it odd that he raises his right hand up above his head?  Don't most people raise their hand so it is level with their face when swearing an oath?  

I recall at least one late night comic (I don't remember which, and it might have been more than one) getting some laughs out of this at the time.

[Kitty Redstone]

I think Rachel was so excited about The Interview and asking the Pentagon guy to come back that she forgot she was off tomorrow night for Richard Engel's special.  LOD was pleasantly surprised to be getting a free Friday night!

Can't wait to see what questions she will ask tomorrow and what his answers will be.  The digital campaign is where it's at.

[kassygreene]

I snagged on that too, and checked my listings which did indeed have Richard Engel listed in Rachel's slot on Friday.

HOWEVER, at the end of the show she explained that she is indeed on this Friday, and Richard Engel will be live from Iraq (in the pre-dawn!!!) during Lawrence's slot.

[ButterQueen]

On 7/8/2017 at 1:02 PM, jjj said:

I thought the way she opened the fake-dox segment, she was teasing the person(s) who had prepared the document.  Someone has to have been watching for weeks and waiting for Rachel to implode with the false information.  Can you imagine the frustration of whoever that is?!  Especially after she started by sounding like she might be about to break a huge news story.  It was, but it was the anti-story. 

.......well, since you put it that way, mission accomplished!!  ?

13 hours ago, jjj said:

YES!!!  Rachel will be hosting her show at the regular time on Friday -- and Richard Engle will take the following hour.  Here's hoping the news makes this worth her time.  I bet it does.

Thanks for the heads-up!!

[M. Darcy]

Ha!  Rachel taking Friday's off this summer lasted an entire week. 

[attica]

You know, I was having a discussion with a colleague about the Russian election tampering after Rachel's segment a little while ago (it's hard to remember how long, since 50 frillion things happen every week) that examined how targeted the hacking was, county by county. He was making the argument that Rachel did with Michael Carpenter last night, that maybe the Russians are in fact good enough at hacking that they wouldn't have needed targeting assistance from a US confederate. I was making the argument that the Russians probably had help. So I felt thoroughly vindicated when Carpenter took my side of the argument, saying that they like to  have help, getting help is their MO and SOP. So I win! And if you can't savor a meaningless office argument victory here in the End Times, what good is anything?!

[jjj]

I am so glad Rachel is on the air today, Friday.  Heaven knows she deserves long weekends -- but the incremental drip-drip-drip of revelations really deserves her attention.  It's not even like Mondays would be a better day, off, given how drips are happening over the weekends, also.  But I especially appreciate her commentary as a bookend at the end of the week. 

[Calvada]

For some reason, I am unable to use the quote feature, but I wanted to reply to M. Darcy. 

I wonder what genius at MSNBC realized they were taking their top rated show off the air once a week and maybe they should put Richard Engel on in a different time slot.  It seems Lawrence O'Donnell is off a lot on Fridays, so it makes more sense to put Engel in that time slot, and use Rachel as the lead-in.  

I also wonder if Rachel is taking any time off this summer.  Usually it's a slow news time, but it is a drip-drip-drip of revelations (about a bunch of drips, amirite?) and Rachel is having a blast covering all this.  I think she went to the network and asked NOT to have Fridays offs.  Rachel Maddow:  the one person who wants to work Fridays in the summer.

[ahisma]

Rachel is still killn' it on the Trussia story! I love that she is incorporating very clear and concise overviews every night, and that she is clarifying the big picture, like with this latest interview. Too often, the steady drip drip is seen as random attacks to make the administration look bad, but she is showing how the drips fit into the overall scheme. 

I'm also really glad she got back to the health (not) care bill tonight, as we can't lose focus on that!

[ottoDbusdriver]

10 hours ago, ahisma said:

Rachel is still killn' it on the Trussia story! I love that she is incorporating very clear and concise overviews every night, and that she is clarifying the big picture, like with this latest interview. Too often, the steady drip drip is seen as random attacks to make the administration look bad, but she is showing how the drips fit into the overall scheme. 

That's the thing with the drippy Trussia story -- by next Tuesday we'll probably find out there were 26 people at this meeting, and someone recorded it.

[Quilt Fairy]

"The "Duh"  is silent."

[ScoobieDoobs]

The "duh" led to a very loud chuckle.  Always luv it when Rach's staff breaks out into loud off-camera chuckles!

That Trump's zillion dollar slickster lawyer couldn't get the name Magnitsky correct on any of the billion shows he was on got a hearty chuckle from me.  Thanks for the giggle, Rach!

[jjj]

Yup, I will find a way to use "The 'Duh' is silent" soon.  Great segment on how the Russian used Trump properties to launder money dating back to the 1980s -- and that was supposed to be the lead segment on the show.  Seemed like a lot of new faces/interviewees tonight on the show.  And when she closes by showing how Fox News took apart the new Trump lawyer -- it was perfect.  Too vile even for Fox to stomach, and that is saying something. 

[JakeyJokes]

I don't know what was funnier to me: Rachel's palpable discomfort in saying Pussy Riot, or the shade she threw struggling to explain why Rand Paul was opposing the health care bill.

[ahisma]

Ian Bremmer was a great get to talk about Trump's meeting with Putin at the G-20. He was really good at the history,  context, etc.

Wendy Sherman was also the perfect person to talk about the State Department, too. Great bookings!

Edited July 19, 2017 by ahisma

[attica]

I found it a bit weird that Bremmer had to do a 'why I'm an expert' spiel at the top of his appearance; Rachel is usually good about doing that for her guests. Then again, it was a last minute booking for a last minute story, so maybe I should hold my fire.

[ahisma]

Usually her guests are either journalists, or current/former public officials—former ambassador to Russia, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sheriff of Dallas County, etc. We can all recognize what their knowledge of the situation will be. Bremmer is an unusual kind of consultant, and I think she wanted to both let him explain it and establish his bona fides. 

[attica]

I'm watching R's coverage of the NYT interview, and I agree with nearly none of her analysis. I think she's giving Orangemandias way too much credit for scheming. Listening to the audio, it sounds to me that his answers are just filling air, not expressing a deeply thought out mindset.  Be cause he so fundamentally lacks any comprehension about how anything actually works, his musing about how unfair it is that Sessions dared recuse himself struck me as so much impotent whining.

And same thing re: his "threat' to fire Mueller. The reporter asked him a leading question, and he got led! Most pols would be savvy about that, but he is just not savvy that way.

Which is not to suggest that he's not capable of firing people who don't perform his stripe of loyalty, but that's not my takeaway. And haven't we learned yet not to take him at his word?

[jjj]

I loved the interview with Walter Shaub, who recently resigned as the head of the Government Ethics Office.  You can see how valuable it is to have a person in that  position who looks at the facts and draws conclusions based on those facts and the law; his patient comments of "no, that is not a conflict of interest" were fascinating in their dry tone.  And his explanation of who the next "interchangeable" acting head of that office was a good warning for us to watch (saying that agencies have a designated "next in command" for situations where a vacancy occurs).  I wish there had been more time for him, but it was a busy news night.

And I agree with Attica about Rachel reading too much into all the "fill the air" comments from Trump, although it would not surprise me if Sessions would resign after hearing these remarks.  But his remarks about moving the FBI out of the Justice Department are a fascinating window into Trump's endless lack of comprehension about government.   Very respectful handoff to Lawrence O'Donnell in their comments about Senator McCain -- and so many of us are wishing him the best. 

21 minutes ago, attica said:

I'm watching R's coverage of the NYT interview, and I agree with nearly none of her analysis. I think she's giving Orangemandias way too much credit for scheming. Listening to the audio, it sounds to me that his answers are just filling air, not expressing a deeply thought out mindset.  Be cause he so fundamentally lacks any comprehension about how anything actually works, his musing about how unfair it is that Sessions dared recuse himself struck me as so much impotent whining.

And same thing re: his "threat' to fire Mueller. The reporter asked him a leading question, and he got led! Most pols would be savvy about that, but he is just not savvy that way.

Which is not to suggest that he's not capable of firing people who don't perform his stripe of loyalty, but that's not my takeaway. And haven't we learned yet not to take him at his word?

[navelgazer]

I nearly applauded after her interview with Walter Shaub, the former director of the Office of Government Ethics who resigned because Cheeto Mussolini could not care less --

Never mind.  What @jjj said.  

[Medicine Crow]

Is there a thread for Lawrence O'Donnell?  I loved his show tonight ... he totally eviscerated Captain Chaos!!

[jjj]

44 minutes ago, Medicine Crow said:

Is there a thread for Lawrence O'Donnell?  I loved his show tonight ... he totally eviscerated Captain Chaos!!

I don't think so?  I could be wrong -- I tried to create one a while back, but it did not work for some reason.

But the MSNBC site under "Networks" can take comments on shows.

Edited July 20, 2017 by jjj

[thosme]

There is a topic here for Lawrence under "L" - The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell.  

[jjj]

1 hour ago, Medicine Crow said:

Is there a thread for Lawrence O'Donnell?  I loved his show tonight ... he totally eviscerated Captain Chaos!!

Ha!  Not only is there a thread, but you, Medicine Crow, were the most recent poster on June 28!  I added a comment about tonight -- thanks for telling us about tonight's show.   It was terrific. 

Edited July 20, 2017 by jjj

[ScoobieDoobs]

Jeez, Rach, you lost me a few times tonite.  Particularly in the opening.  I was lost, lost, lost.  Might watch again at midnite.  But that's not good.  This stuff is getting so damn overwhelming, it's important you go thru it slowly & carefully & maybe use some of your helpful lists, Rach.