Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
AmandaPanda

All Episodes Discussion: 2017 Season

Recommended Posts

I think Michael Beschloss provided a big dose of American history to Rachel, also -- those images of the marches in DC in the 1920s were amazing.  And her pointing to Fred Trump as part of this movement was news to me, although it appears to have been out there for a while, based on what she said.  She and Joy certainly, rightly, seemed subdued at the handoff.   

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

3 hours ago, maystone said:

Tonight's opening should be required viewing across America. That was chilling, and I'm no illiterate about American history.

She  showed that the KKK in it's many forms over the decades has had a presence in American governance. This is nothing new, from Woodrow Wilson, to now.  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, maystone said:

Tonight's opening should be required viewing across America. That was chilling, and I'm no illiterate about American history.

The montage of images from Charlottesville as Drumpf's voice rolled on, with each image giving the lie to the words, was quite powerful to me.

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post

I love when Steve Schmidt is on any show.  I wish all Republicans would show the outrage that he did at Trump's disgraceful remarks.  I don't know if it was on Rachel's show or later on the 11th hour (or both shows) where he called Trump morally bankrupt and an empty suit.  Steve was so eloquent in his take down of Trump.  When are the elected republicans going to do something about it.  Steve is also right in MSNBC commercial where BW asks him who is going to speak truth to power and Steve says, Not A Single Person.  The tweets by Ryan and Mitchell responding to Trump were tepid, at best (normal stuff you're supposed to say). 

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

 

Tonight's opening should be required viewing across America. That was chilling, and I'm no illiterate about American history.

She  showed that the KKK in it's many forms over the decades has had a presence in American governance. This is nothing new, from Woodrow Wilson, to now.  

 

I had a feeling where she was going with it,and when she brought up the marches in NYC I was like "Bring it home, Rach. This is gonna be good".  Donnie was brought up with this hatred. I don't know why everyone is so surprised by what he's been saying, he spent four years trying to discredit President Obama, not over policy but that he wasn't a legitimate president.   He was stirring up shit from the get go. 

 

Quote

Citronella Putsch. 

I call them Brotherhood of the Tiki Torches. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

those images of the marches in DC in the 1920s were amazing

I had to look away from a second - I know it was almost 100 years ago but thinking of how close that isto where my office is was disturbing.  I'm glad she showed them of course - but...sigh. yesterday was not a good day.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

19 hours ago, Apprentice79 said:

She  showed that the KKK in it's many forms over the decades has had a presence in American governance. This is nothing new, from Woodrow Wilson, to now.  

I know that. What I found chilling was the way it was presented - in one solid block, sequentially, headlines, film, the whole multimedia experience over Maddow's commentary. I found it very effective.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

I can't stand it when Rachel teases the opening (or any story) with a dose of "can you believe" before she gets to the story itself.  Today's opening segment was a couple of minutes of "gee, you'd think the president's lawyer would be um, *busy* with the president's case.  But this one apparently has time on his hands, according to a New York Times story that was just posted."  She went on so long with the "hard to believe he did this", but not telling us what "this" was, that I pulled up the NY Times story and read most of it while she was still introducing it.    I know two minutes is not that long, but it is like a l-o-o-o-ong voicemail announcement that you have to sit through just to say  "CALL ME!".  That said, yes, it is crazy that the lawyer has time or the inclination  to get involved in the issue of defining white supremacy. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, jjj said:

I can't stand it when Rachel teases the opening (or any story) with a dose of "can you believe" before she gets to the story itself. ... That said, yes, it is crazy that the lawyer has time or the inclination  to get involved in the issue of defining white supremacy. 

Agree with this, and even more, in the grand scheme of all the horrible stories out there, it's a footnote to a footnote to a footnote.  Not deserving of leading off the show, and maybe even of mention at all. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Sherrilyn Ifill was awesomely inspiring and eloquent. I would say she should run for office, but we need her where she is, too.

I also loved what the mayor of Birmingham is doing. 

An uplifting episode in a dispiriting time.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

Sheesh, Rach was really reaching with that story of the FBI guy going from the Russia/Mueller investigation to HR.  I mean, c'mon, Rach.  There could be very good reasons for it, that aren't sinister in the least.  We're not supposed to know about the inner workings of the FBI -- are we?  You could say the same thing about pretty much ANY private company, right?  Rach, stick to stuff that's actually happening, will ya?  Unfortunately, there's more than enough of that to keep you busy for an hour.  No need to waste your time & ours, getting dramatic over stuff that you're not sure will end up just being a bunch of irrelevant nothing.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, I went and read the ABC story to which she referred, and sure, maybe there is something to the theory, and maybe it is a NothingBurger.  Job hours, job location, internal personality conflicts, health, family obligations are all reasons to shift from one job to another.  And we have heard a lot of stories about all the experts Mueller has hired.  Maybe the FBI has a better health plan.  There was enough other news that it seemed Rachel was giving a lot of time to this speculation.  Maybe she knows more than she can say!

36 minutes ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Sheesh, Rach was really reaching with that story of the FBI guy going from the Russia/Mueller investigation to HR.  I mean, c'mon, Rach.  There could be very good reasons for it, that aren't sinister in the least.  We're not supposed to know about the inner workings of the FBI -- are we?  You could say the same thing about pretty much ANY private company, right?  Rach, stick to stuff that's actually happening, will ya?  Unfortunately, there's more than enough of that to keep you busy for an hour.  No need to waste your time & ours, getting dramatic over stuff that you're not sure will end up just being a bunch of irrelevant nothing.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

9 hours ago, ahisma said:

Sherrilyn Ifill was awesomely inspiring and eloquent. I would say she should run for office, but we need her where she is, too.

So much agree. I think even Rachel got a little verklempt thanking her for all she does. Which I totally get and endorse!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Did anyone else hear one of the guests last night say there was a March on August 28th to commemorate the IHAD speech? I thought it was on TRMS, but all the news shows I'm consuming are blurring in my mind. I tried to find info about the event online but wasn't having any luck. I was too tired last night, should probably have gone to sleep instead of trying to pay attention, but I'm addicted to the news cycle these days.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, possibilities said:

Did anyone else hear one of the guests last night say there was a March on August 28th to commemorate the IHAD speech? I thought it was on TRMS, but all the news shows I'm consuming are blurring in my mind. I tried to find info about the event online but wasn't having any luck. I was too tired last night, should probably have gone to sleep instead of trying to pay attention, but I'm addicted to the news cycle these days.

possibilities, I think this may be what you are looking for.

 

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/martin-luther-king-jr-the-i-have-a-dream-march-on-washington-tour-free-tickets-36252488168

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I'm glad Rach wasn't booted off for endless Barcelona coverage.  And yet, there you are, Rach, endlessly covering Barcelona.  Please, I beg ya, Rach, please, please, please move on.  There are so many things happening here now for you to discuss.

Why oh why does MSNBC & CNN do this same shit whenever there's a terrorist attack?  Guess I'll have to tune out Rach till she's allowed to move onto other topics.  Ugh.

OK, checked back half way thru & she finally got off Barcelona.  Thanks, Rach.

Edited by ScoobieDoobs
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Rach had a pretty good half-hour, when she wasn't side-lined by the Barcelona story.  I wish she woulda said something about Bannon, but she did only have a half-hour.  Rach, please fight the a-holes at MSNBC who try to ruin your show by making you do endless coverage of the latest terrorist story.  Sorry, Rach, but the one really, really on fire tonite was Joy, who was in for Chris Hayes.  Jeez, when will these dopes at MSNBC realize Joy is the one who should have the hour before Rach, not the supremely boring & meh Chris Hayes?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

That was really great what Rachel said about the Military being so anti white supremacist.  Especially as she said given the point that they are kind of busy with everything else and shouldn't have to deal with Trump's crap. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

Probably everyone heard this, but just in case:  Rachel said last night that she will be live on the air tonight, Friday.  And thank goodness!  She made such a big point of Big Friday news a month or two back that it seemed odd that she or MSNBC would choose Friday as her day off.  But not tonight!

Share this post


Link to post

Oy, Rach, please let go of that story of the FBI guy going from the Russia/Mueller investigation to HR.  Right now, it's nothing & you're projecting & talking theories which could likely be untrue.  You don't do this too often, Rach -- which is good.  But it worries me when you do this cuz it gives your enemies the justification to say you spread fake news.  Please don't give that to 'em, Rach.

Now, OTOH, Rach was great in discussing the extreme influence of Robert Mercer -- on staffing in the Trump campaign & administration.  That was fascinating & so enlightening.  And I hadn't heard anywhere else about Besty DeVos' brother Erik Prince, now being blocked out of that big WH meeting on Afghanistan, & Prince's suspicious/sinister plan to get 10 bil a year for some kind of "defense" in Afghanistan is off because of Bannon's ouster.  Thanks for being so on top of this stuff, Rach.

And Rach repeatedly looking around, asking . . . anyone else leaving the White House?  Anyone?  Anyone?  Heh, heh, thanks for the end-of-a-horrible-week giggle, Rach!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Oy, Rach, please let go of that story of the FBI guy going from the Russia/Mueller investigation to HR.  Right now, it's nothing & you're projecting & talking theories which could likely be untrue.

He could have been demoted for something that had nothing to do with his investigations with the Clinton emails or Trump-Russia. It could be a temporary assignment due to a medical situation (can't shoot a gun, therefore can't carry one and has to be reassigned). Could be the guy is burned out and needs six months of light duty to recharge. Doesn't mean that Mueller's investigation is in trouble or has hit a snag. LET IT GO. None of our business.

Please god don't let some idiot Nazi tear down or deface that new memorial at the library.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I'm with her on the HR guy---something's weird about it.    Not sure what....but it feels weird.

I've missed best thing in the worlds!!!!   I also miss Friday night viewer trivia and cocktails--I can't think if she's been able to do that since the election.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, I was disappointed she gave another segment to the Mueller team member who now is working at FBI HR.  Even if one of the theories is true -- that he was identified as the leaker of the search warrant last week -- what that means is that Mueller is running an extremely tight ship, with not a single leak of any kind allowed.  And if that is true, it is not "the wheels coming off", as Rachel said, but a sign that this is an incredibly disciplined process.  They have said all along that Mueller would tolerate no drama. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

I have read novels written by highly sourced authors in which an agent is shuffled off to HR in punishment for some transgression, so this reassignment definitely screams that there's something hunky going on.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/19/2017 at 2:15 PM, Sharpie66 said:

there's something hunky going on

God bless auto-correct; if all hinky were replaced by hunky, at least the news would be more fun to watch these days.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

I retired from a federal law enforcement agency and my husband from the Justice Dept (federal prosecutor), and when we heard Rachel report on someone on Mueller's team being moved to HR, we looked at each other and went - uh oh.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
45 minutes ago, chessiegal said:

I retired from a federal law enforcement agency and my husband from the Justice Dept (federal prosecutor), and when we heard Rachel report on someone on Mueller's team being moved to HR, we looked at each other and went - uh oh.

So if it's hinky, hinky in what way?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

So if it's hinky, hinky in what way?

Hard to say - but probably wasn't performing as expected/needed. Just our guess, but moving from an investigative role to HR is kind of a slap in our experience. Again, just our guess.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

18 minutes ago, chessiegal said:

Hard to say - but probably wasn't performing as expected/needed. Just our guess, but moving from an investigative role to HR is kind of a slap in our experience. Again, just our guess.

Oh right, I understood that connection. I'm just not clear what it means for the investigation in general. If one team member wasn't performing as expected or needed, is that a signal that the investigation is also not working out?

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, sistermagpie said:

Oh right, I understood that connection. I'm just not clear what it means for the investigation in general. If one team member wasn't performing as expected or needed, is that a signal that the investigation is also not working out?

Again, guessing - knowing Mueller's reputation I'd bet on investigation is moving forward,

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Rach was def implying the guy being moved to HR was a bad thing.  Maybe not.  Maybe Mueller was weeding out someone not up to the job.  Well, at least that's what I'm hoping.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

What I don't understand is this: If someone is doing a bad job as an investigator, why would you want them to work in HR? Are the skills really transferable? And if the person is untrustworthy and up to something truly nefarious as Rachel implied, you'd want them out of the agency entirely, not prowling through personnel files. If it's just incompetence, why would you think they could do better in HR? There's definitely something weird about it, but Rachel brought it up twice even though she really didn't give us any additional or significant information about it. I wonder if she actually KNOWS something, but can't tell us because it's off the record or unconfirmed or something. It's not like there's a lack of stories to cover and she needs filler, or that she'd need to reach for something sensationalistic just for the sake of creating buzz, because there's more than enough crazy/alarming/outrageous stuff going on that could serve that purpose.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I hope she doesn't bring it up again unless there is some new "weirdness" to it.  She's got plenty to talk about on what's actually happening.  Look, I think it's awesome that she asks questions about stuff which stands out as being odd/strange or just generally makes no sense.  But creating drama around possible theories that could end up to be nothing is annoying.  And it could negatively affect her credibility.  I'd really hate to see that happen.

I do so enjoy her constant updates on all the Trump departures.  C'est magnifique, Rach!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

That was a great story about the new plaque about the library sit in.  I feel a little stupid that I never knew that libraries used to be segregated though they did mention it in the movie Hidden Figures. 

Share this post


Link to post

13 hours ago, possibilities said:

What I don't understand is this: If someone is doing a bad job as an investigator, why would you want them to work in HR? Are the skills really transferable? And if the person is untrustworthy and up to something truly nefarious as Rachel implied, you'd want them out of the agency entirely, not prowling through personnel files. If it's just incompetence, why would you think they could do better in HR? There's definitely something weird about it, but Rachel brought it up twice even though she really didn't give us any additional or significant information about it. I wonder if she actually KNOWS something, but can't tell us because it's off the record or unconfirmed or something. It's not like there's a lack of stories to cover and she needs filler, or that she'd need to reach for something sensationalistic just for the sake of creating buzz, because there's more than enough crazy/alarming/outrageous stuff going on that could serve that purpose.

Is there an advantage to keeping them working at the FBI? Maybe they're under even more confidentiality that way? Or less likely to blab if they're still getting a paycheck?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

Is there an advantage to keeping them working at the FBI?

I am retired law enforcement too, but from a state agency. As I stated earlier, the only time I saw another officer moved to a non-LE position was if they couldn't function physically as an officer (ie., shoot a gun or any other physical actions of an officer). It could be a short term medical situation (until they are cleared by the doc) or a permanent medical reassignment (they are still in good standing). If an officer had become incompetent as an officer, they were usually let go from the agency all together, for liability purposes. The State Training board then determined if they should retain their commission. In this situation that Rachel is reporting on, I still don't see how the officer's situation means that Mueller's investigation is having problems. Only the officer himself is having problems and it is being dealt with separate from Mueller. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

What bugged me about Rachel was that her interpretation was "FBI agent is moved to HR -- this signals possible trouble in the investigation."  But what I saw was:  "FBI agent moved to HR -- signals that there was a problem with this agent, and no room for drama/flaws in MuellerWorld."   And it sounds like a paper-pushing arrangement that allows him to get benefits and maybe get to retirement age? 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

I'm having the same reaction as jjj. It's so weird, it makes me wonder what the hell Rachel is talking about. I don't want her to waste more airtime on this, but at the same time, I want her to explain herself because it makes no sense.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Because Rachel kept emphasizing that there was something odd about the delayed firing of Flynn and she was right (and I didn't know exactly why), I'm willing to give her a while on this.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

That kind of transfer tends to signal "we can't fire you so you are getting a lateral transfer in the hopes that you will resign/retire soon".  In the military it tends to mean that a career-ending event has happened (like a collision at sea with another ship, or running aground, or in the case of a friend of mine, an incident somewhere on base on a weekend when you are the Officer On Duty - absolutely not your fault, and nothing you could have done, but not grounds for dismissal, and as it turned out she did her twenty and got her pension, but there was absolutely no way she would ever get promoted to Colonel).

Either some undisclosed conflict turned up, or he was one of the agents that Comey sort of implied last year was forcing his hand on disclosure of the re-opened investigation, or some non-related but serious professional event in his career happened that is completely unrelated to the investigation but is the sort of thing you bench an investigator for, or even some medical event that requires a far less stressful job (I have twice in my life at different institutions and in different states worked with someone who had a sudden and surprising diagnosis of congestive heart problems, and who probably would have benefited from transferring to a less stressful job or going immediately on medical leave, except both of these guys died within six weeks of diagnosis).  

This kind of transfer can happen in a non-punishment scenario.  We are accustomed to it being a punishment (lots of tv watchers in this forum, after all).  It isn't automatically bad news for the investigation.  It is automatically a weapon of opportunity for people who want this investigation to be discredited.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Glad to hear there'll be a fresh new hour of TRMS at midnight, rather than a rerun where we have to hear trump's speech again.

Quote

I couldn't get over how gorgeous Rachel looked tonight ... her hair & make-up was different & she seemed to "glow" ... as in really beautiful.

Agreed.  The same was true one evening last week where she looked especially beautiful.  A little color on Rachel is a wonderful touch!  Brains and beauty...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

In case she did not say this:  Rachel will be "live" at midnight tonight.  (End of Monday evening)

ETA: oh, sorry-- see you said that above, not visible on my iPod until I pressed "send"!

 

ETA 2:  we "sent" at the same time!

Edited by jjj
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Well, I purposely avoided watching the orange monster's speech, but on her midnite show, Rach started to play him at length every 2 seconds, so I tuned out cuz I didn't wanna have nightmares before I go beddy-bye.  

Oh Rach, c'mon, I depend on you to be different than the other MSNBC people, who play Trump endlessly & I have to keep my finger on the mute button so I don't have to listen to his bullshit or look at his stupid orange mug.  I was so deeply disappointed in Rach, I tuned outta her midnite show after about 2 minutes.  Was it worth watching?  I'm hoping she avoided talking about the eclipse.  Jeez, EVERYONE on MSNBC blathered on endlessly about it.  And I couldn't care less -- well, except for the shot of the moron orange asshole looking directly into it -- cuz that was a hoot!  Ah, but Rach is different than the rest of 'em at MSNBC.  Please tell me she didn't discuss that damned eclipse I didn't give a fuck about.  Please?

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

I was actually happy to see Chris Matthews on the 9 pm show.

He's not buying into one damn thing.

Also, the close-ups of trump are nightmarish.  He looks like he styles his hair with Elmer's glue.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

I thought Rachel looked like she had a sunburn. Why would you rouge the tip of your nose and draw little red clown circles on your cheeks?

I was glad Matthews was so blunt. I don't usually watch him, and I suspect they had him on Rachel's show to boost his ratings. But I agree he acquitted himself well. I just can't take on more hours of MSNBC and I'm got giving up Rachel, LOD, Ari Melber, and AMJoy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, stormy said:

He looks like he styles his hair with Elmer's glue.

True story: I was once sitting in a waiting room with a woman with the most amazing 80s big hair. Like video vixen big hair. Like impossible without fake-hair hair. (Fortunately, it was the 80s, so, impressive but not scary.) After many minutes of me wondering, I finally got up the nerve to ask her what product she used. If it was a mousse or wax, I was buying it. Big hair was #hairgoals, after all. She smiled all friendly and said, "Krazy Glue."  So there's precedence for the Orange Menace!

I'm developing a crush on Michael Beschloss. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, attica said:

I'm developing a crush on Michael Beschloss. 

Step away slowly, Attica, he's my TV boyfriend!  Why didn't my history professors in college look like him?  I would love to go to a Sunday brunch with him and Rachel.  I can think of nothing more fun than lingering over coffee, talking about events both current and historical, maybe talk a little football, what books we're all reading . . . ah, bliss.

  • Like 10

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size