All Episodes Discussion: 2017 Season

[attica]

It's not like it's surprising that 2 wonks would get their wonk on, but that doesn't make it any less beautiful. 

[ahisma]

Tonight's show was so good! I am so glad Rachel is keeping up the pressure on Pence. He is in this up to his neck, too. The FL nursing home story is awful, but what a twist—we'll see how that plays out. And she got new news on the Cuban sonic weapon story—also creepy, and I'm glad she's staying on it. I'm always up for Rachel mocking Devin Nunes. He is ridiculous and deserves mockery. And finally, as promised last night, more on Facebook. Rubles! RUBLES! smh

[Mmmfloorpie]

Anyone else get annoyed with that one female producer that always laughs off camera?

I don't need a laugh track on my news shows.

If someone can send this message to the guy that has been doing that on Today Show for the past 20 years, that would be great too.

[ButterQueen]

1 hour ago, Mmmfloorpie said:

Anyone else get annoyed with that one female producer that always laughs off camera?

I don't need a laugh track on my news shows.

If someone can send this message to the guy that has been doing that on Today Show for the past 20 years, that would be great too.

I enjoy that myself.

[Hanahope]

Really annoyed.  My podcast of Friday's show won't download and it keeps stopping when u try to play it otherwise.  And it's not on the website via the app. :(

[ButterQueen]

Mika is back.....bummer!

[Mmmfloorpie]

On 9/16/2017 at 11:08 AM, ButterQueen said:

I enjoy that myself.

The one thing I do enjoy is that no one laughs at Brian Williams' lame jokes lol.

[ScoobieDoobs]

Idk, I'm definitely glad Rach keeps up with all the Manafort & Russia stuff.  But I gotta tell ya, it was giving me a headache when she relayed how it was said (by FBI agents or whoever) that right now it's inconclusive whether Manafort was encouraging Russians to support the Trump campaign.  I actually screamed at my TV --  Rach, move the fuck on from this & talk about the latest Senate-repealing-Obamacare horror.  Thankfully, Rach did move on & she did rightfully emphasize how concerning & scary this is.  And yeah, she did say that people will probably rise up in protest as concern & awareness over what's going on with this latest Obamacare repeal effort becomes greater.  But this can escalate extremely quickly, so I'm hoping over the next few days she gives much higher priority to the Obamacare-repeal stuff than anything on Russia or Manafort.

[meowmommy]

1 hour ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Idk, I'm definitely glad Rach keeps up with all the Manafort & Russia stuff.  But I gotta tell ya, it was giving me a headache when she relayed how it was said (by FBI agents or whoever) that right now it's inconclusive whether Manafort was encouraging Russians to support the Trump campaign.  I actually screamed at my TV --  Rach, move the fuck on from this & talk about the latest Senate-repealing-Obamacare horror.  Thankfully, Rach did move on & she did rightfully emphasize how concerning & scary this is.  And yeah, she did say that people will probably rise up in protest as concern & awareness over what's going on with this latest Obamacare repeal effort becomes greater.  But this can escalate extremely quickly, so I'm hoping over the next few days she gives much higher priority to the Obamacare-repeal stuff than anything on Russia or Manafort.

I feel exactly the opposite.  I want her to keep pushing the Russia story, as hard as possible, from all its angles, because that's the situation that's going to have the most lasting and important long-term impact.  As far as ACA repeal, it's lather, rinse, repeat, IMO. 

[ScoobieDoobs]

The tens of millions who will lose their healthcare if the Senate has their way on this latest effort would disagree with you.  Thankfully, at least from what I got from Rach's concerned looks, she likely disagrees with you too.  I have no doubt Rach will never completely break away from Russia.  Nor is there any need to.  She seems to know intuitively where to go.  She's not like the rest of the MSNBC'ers.  She's not pushing the panic button -- but she's clearly concerned about the latest repeal effort & I'm glad "rinse, lather & repeat" doesn't seem to be her POV at all.

[meowmommy]

1 hour ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

She's not pushing the panic button -- but she's clearly concerned about the latest repeal effort & I'm glad "rinse, lather & repeat" doesn't seem to be her POV at all.

I was one of the forgotten tens of millions who were left without healthcare by the gaps in the ACA, and penalized heavily at a  time when I could least afford it.  But that isn't what prompted my comment.  What I meant by my line was that the Republicans push some stupid repeal option, the usual protests ensue, and the vote, more than likely, falls short.  In the end I think there are enough media outlets that will cover the ACA issue in its entirety, while Rachel is always out in front of the Russia story and that's where I believe she has had, and can have, her most impact.

Edited September 19, 2017 by meowmommy

[teddysmom]

2 hours ago, Hanahope said:

But I gotta tell ya, it was giving me a headache when she relayed how it was said (by FBI agents or whoever) that right now it's inconclusive whether Manafort was encouraging Russians to support the Trump campaign

They have to be SOOO careful not to say something in the teensy chance it turns out they say the wrong thing about the wrong person.   But we all know.   You don't have that many people on your campaign with ties to Russia, Russia bragging about it, taking meetings with Trump campaign, etc etc etc etc etc, without there being something there. 

Edited September 19, 2017 by teddysmom

[Morrigan2575]

I was happy that Rachel covered the Russia stuff last night, I think it's important. 

Right now my 2 most important topics are Russia and the Graham Bill. IIRC Rachel divides her show into 3 acts so there's room to give time to both plus a 3rd topic. 

I'm a little worried that tonight will get distracted by Mexico because I really want her to continue the Russia/Manafort stuff from last night. 

Edited September 20, 2017 by Morrigan2575

[ScoobieDoobs]

"Awful, but lawful"?  Or was it "lawful, but awful"?  Either way, a very good line from Barbara McQuade, an always excellent & informative guest.  And it got a chuckle outta Rach.  Kinda doubt Rach would say that line herself, but it was great to hear on the show.  Instead, maybe Rach & her crew's next drinking game might be how, when & who to attach that line to Trump & his gang.  But it must be done on a Friday nite cuz they'll get drunky awfully quick.

[jjj]

Oh, Rachel's first segment tonight was just sickening.  Who is paying for the Trump lawyers (campaign funds), where is the accounting on the inauguration (so many dollars not accounted for), the random campaign workers elevated into high agency positions without *any* experience on USDA or Treasury issues (a tire salesman, a party planner), the "sense of entitlement" to dipping both hands into public funds, the private planes (well beyond the HHS Secretary Price trips), etc., etc., ETC. 

"Drain the swamp"?  They ARE the Swamp.  

[ScoobieDoobs]

So Rach seemed completely blown away to learn from that expert, how the Inaugural funds can be used any way Trump wants to use 'em -- and he can keep whatever is left over & never disclose anything.  Gah!  I was as flumoxed as Rach to hear this!

Rach has been on this story for a while, so I'm kinda surprised she's just learning this now.  Still, I hope she stays all over this Inaugural funds story - cuz it stinks like hell.  Something else pertaining to Trump that's "awful, but lawful"?  

Two nites ago, Barbara McQuade said that (awful, but lawful) to describe Trump using campaign funds to pay for his legal defense in the Russia probe.  And Rach asked this expert tonite if campaign funds could be used for Trump Jr's defense.  Very interesting that the expert said since Jr was not officially part of the campaign they could get into trouble for using campaign funds to pay for his defense.  Hmmm, as Rach says, watch this space . . .

[Hanahope]

10 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

So Rach seemed completely blown away to learn from that expert, how the Inaugural funds can be used any way Trump wants to use 'em -- and he can keep whatever is left over & never disclose anything.  Gah!  I was as flumoxed as Rach to hear this!

If there's no requirement to audit or account for inaugural funds, then what's to stop trump from siphoning other money into this fund, so he could use it however he wants?  Its money laundering at its finest.

[M. Darcy]

Quote

Two nites ago, Barbara McQuade said that (awful, but lawful)

That's the expression I was trying to remember.  It really sums up quite a bit.

If Rachel is right about Spicer not having a lawyer, he's even stupider than I think he is.  I've watched enough Law and Order, even if you did nothing wrong, get a lawyer.   I remember someone saying on either Rachel, Chris or Joy that no one in the Obama Administration ever had to hire one.  Times sure have changed. 

[Galloway Cave]

45 minutes ago, Hanahope said:

Its money laundering at its finest.

That's special interest bribery at it's best. Special interest groups, a rich businessman, someone who wants a relative hired in the Administration, anyone can donate to the inauguration fund. No wonder Trump's was double what anyone previously collected. His fund manager knew exactly what it would take to put on that paltry inauguration celebration (despite the lies they put out about the amounts) and the rest was pocketed by Trump for the favors he would bestow or just because he's he's a crook.

I bet Rachel's crew is getting the donation list and tracking any special interests and relatives as we write today....

[ScoobieDoobs]

15 minutes ago, Galloway Cave said:

That's special interest bribery at it's best. Special interest groups, a rich businessman, someone who wants a relative hired in the Administration, anyone can donate to the inauguration fund. No wonder Trump's was double what anyone previously collected. His fund manager knew exactly what it would take to put on that paltry inauguration celebration (despite the lies they put out about the amounts) and the rest was pocketed by Trump for the favors he would bestow or just because he's he's a crook.

I bet Rachel's crew is getting the donation list and tracking any special interests and relatives as we write today....

I didn't even get that far -- to think of the 100 mil in the Inaugural funds as bribery.  And Rach has never made any such suggestion, or even hinted at such an accusation -- yet.  I've been merely horrified at the thought of Trump seeing these funds as his slush fund or profit center or bonus, to do with however he wishes.  Ew, ick, yuck & feh.  Makes me wince & shudder at the corrupt greed it takes to do this.

Right now, Rachel seems to be taking this story one step at a time.  First,  she's asking how this Inauguration, attended by nobody, with entertainment by nobody/losers could have cost 25 mil, as was claimed.  And Obama's Inaugural, attended by hundreds of thousands, with entertainment by tons of the top musicians, cost 5 mil.  Er, huh?

Still, if this is all "awful, but lawful", what can Rach accomplish by covering this story?  Not sure.  But certainly, at best, it can be extremely embarrassing, right?  Or is this a waste of time, and nothing effectively taints Trump & sticks?  I refuse to believe that.  I suspect Rach does too 

[Hanahope]

5 minutes ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Still, if this is all "awful, but lawful", what can Rach accomplish by covering this story?  Not sure.  But certainly, at best, it can be extremely embarrassing, right?  Or is this a waste of time, and nothing effectively taints Trump & sticks?  I refuse to believe that.  I suspect Rach does too 

My hope is that in a future administration, with a more honorable Congress and an honest president, a law will be pass requiring an accounting for these funds as well.  

Its amazing that this hasn't been done before, but obviously the issue never came up, or at least wasn't brought to light.  Likely it was never this bad before.  Kudos to Rachael for bringing this story/issue into daylight.  This is why I love her and MSNBC.

Edited September 22, 2017 by Hanahope

[attica]

1 hour ago, Hanahope said:

Its money laundering at its finest.

I don't even think it's metaphorical money laundering. I'm willing to bet such a haul may well be full of Russian oligarch's rubles (Twice as much as Bam? when even lots of people in his own party hate him?), and they're just scrubbin' it clean.

[bad things are bad]

Quote

Either way, a very good line from Barbara McQuade, an always excellent & informative guest.

When Trump fired all the DOJ attorneys, the loss of Barbara McQuade enraged me. She was so awesomely competent.

I hope she runs for something here (state AG would be nice...), but maybe she'll have a career with Rachel as a pundit. 

[ScoobieDoobs]

I really hope Rach verifies if that expert was right.  I wonder if other experts would agree with him.  Can Trump really use the Inaugural funds as a slush-fund/profit-center -- with absolutely no accountability?  This makes no sense.  Charities don't work this way.  Why would donations to an inauguration work like this?  Due to an oversight in the law, which Trump is taking full advantage of?  Ugh.  Stay all over this one, Rach!

[Tunia]

Quote

Due to an oversight in the law, which Trump is taking full advantage of?  Stay all over this one, Rach!

While I'd hate to think or say that trump has good lawyers, he does have sleazy lawyers who somehow are competent enough to sniff out every loophole for trump to squeeze through.  The same was true in his business and tax dealings, using any remote clause to screw his partners, competitors, creditors and probably most of others with whom he interacts.  No wonder this man doesn't sleep.

[jjj]

Wow, Rachel's report last night about the accountability-free-zone nature of inauguration funds explains why Trump was so livid and insistent about the size of his manhood crowd.  Yes, it was partly ego, but he also had to justify that they spent twice as much money on a much, much smaller event than Obama had done.  They are sleazy, but they are smart.  They knew what they were doing when they raked all that money in.  He spends his day watching cable news and listening to reports on the legal and financial loopholes they keep finding. 

I also was amazed at Rachel's report that Spicer does not have a lawyer.  I knew people on Bill Clinton's staff, and they had to find and pay for their own lawyers during the Starr investigation.  It is expensive. 

[ahisma]

That is horrifying, that Manafort was advising the group in '06 that instigated riots against US Marines. He needs to go down for something. 

[ScoobieDoobs]

So Rach did indeed confirm (with several other experts) what the expert said last nite.  Trump can spend the Inaugural funds any ole way he wants to.  Oy.  Well, good for Rach.  She is not leaving this story alone.  Awesome!  As far as I'm concerned she can do this one every nite -- and flash that "no comment" from the White House when she mentions asking them about it.  I want her to continue relentlessly with this until ALL other media catch onto this story -- just as they all did today with the story of Price spending 300 thou on private jets on the taxpayers' dime.

[ahisma]

Rachel and Michael hit it out of the park again. I had suspected that Trump's sports tantrum was because there was some Russia investigation news coming he was distracting from. But Rachel's news that there is a Facebook ad campaign is even more chilling. Michael's Nixon parallels were right on.

[attica]

Joe Cirincione is a smart guy, and MSNBC is lucky to have him. But jeez, that apocalyptic view of his is making me wanna cash out my 401k and start spending before the end of the world.

[TexasGal]

2 hours ago, attica said:

Joe Cirincione is a smart guy, and MSNBC is lucky to have him. But jeez, that apocalyptic view of his is making me wanna cash out my 401k and start spending before the end of the world.

No kidding!  I was hoping there would a be a calming voice of reason guest that would say it's not as bad as we think.  Nope.  

[meowmommy]

19 hours ago, ahisma said:

Rachel and Michael hit it out of the park again. I had suspected that Trump's sports tantrum was because there was some Russia investigation news coming he was distracting from. But Rachel's news that there is a Facebook ad campaign is even more chilling. Michael's Nixon parallels were right on.

My only complaint about Michael's visits to TRMS is that they're not long enough!   I think when you're providing an historical context, you need time to set it up properly and then expound upon it, and I always feel like Michael is just getting warmed up and then it's time to go to commercial.

[Hanahope]

I loved Rachel putting together the timeline of the Russia meeting with Don Jr and Paul Manafort with trumps announcement that he would soon make a speech about Hillary's bad acts back during the campaign and then the Wikileaks email dump. Evidence that trump knew exactly what was going on. 

[possibilities]

I'm sick over the situation in PR. I wish she'd made specific recommendations for how people can help-- who to call, where to donate, what people can do, in concrete terms. People will be more likely to act if given concrete instructions they can take right away while the info is fresh. This is a crisis, they need to talk action, not just set up the horror of it.

[ScoobieDoobs]

4 hours ago, possibilities said:

I'm sick over the situation in PR. I wish she'd made specific recommendations for how people can help-- who to call, where to donate, what people can do, in concrete terms. People will be more likely to act if given concrete instructions they can take right away while the info is fresh. This is a crisis, they need to talk action, not just set up the horror of it.

The segment with the San Juan mayor was very, very moving.  That woman is a hero.  But yeah, Rach needs to take this a step further.  She has provided specific instructions before, for starting grassroots movements.  I don't see why she can't provide detailed info on phone numbers & websites for donating & volunteering.

As far as I'm concerned, Rach could have on the San Juan mayor every nite to give updates & directly contrast the oddly out-of-touch picture Trump was painting of what's going on in PR right now.  If Rach really wants to help, she needs to keep covering this story every bit as much as Russia -- particularly as Trump is congratulating himself on how he's handling the crisis down there.

Edited September 27, 2017 by ScoobieDoobs

[Tunia]

17 hours ago, meowmommy said:

My only complaint about Michael's visits to TRMS is that they're not long enough!   I think when you're providing an historical context, you need time to set it up properly and then expound upon it, and I always feel like Michael is just getting warmed up and then it's time to go to commercial.

Not to mention that other reason for more Michael...he's my TV boyfriend!

[ahisma]

The long-form, high-level look at Russia's tactics, especially via Facebook, is an instant classic. So much clarity.

And then the overall look at the lack of organization of the Puerto Rico effort. What the hell? 

Reminder about the lawyer funding, reminder about Paul Manafort... Great episode tonight.

[Morrigan2575]

Watching Rachel last night felt like a horror movie. It was terrifying to learn how deep seated this Russia stuff goes. 

[Galloway Cave]

32 minutes ago, Morrigan2575 said:

It was terrifying to learn how deep seated this Russia stuff goes. 

It's also terrifying that the Government under Cheeto is doing everything it can to interfere with the investigation into what Russia did, is doing nothing from preventing it from happening again and is the lead voice in the "Russia Hoax" chorus line of the right-wing media. Hearing how Russia did this in so many other countries, just to cause disruption, was an eye-opener. Trump knows damn well that Russia helped him but is under the impression it's because Putin likes him. It's always about Trump with him. That is why Trump is denying what happened. He will never believe it really wasn't about him and was actually about pulverizing united countries around the globe, US included. His ego won't allow that. In the meantime, we are figuring out what happened here, but how are we going to stop it again?

[ButterQueen]

"Marcia Marcia Marcia".....????

That segment was hysterical.

[Hanahope]

I appreciate all the reporting as to the problems in PR, but how about explaining why things aren't getting done.  Why is no one coordinating the distribution of the truck deliveries?  Who is at fault here?  How difficult is it to send a speed boat with some people over to PR to do this?  Yeah Yeah little Marco, keep ranting, but how about actually doing something?  

And keep repeating about the innaugural slush fund Rachael!  Don't let anyone forget about that!

[Galloway Cave]

1 hour ago, Hanahope said:

Why is no one coordinating the distribution of the truck deliveries?  Who is at fault here?

I was wondering the same thing. Is FEMA supposed to be coordinating the distribution? The Governor? It sounds like a General is now over there coordinating the distribution. So the military was supposed to be in charge? How was it done in Texas and Florida? So many questions about that. 

[Calvada]

It wasn't Serena Williams in the Wimbledon final, but Venus Williams.  I expect someone on the staff will correct her within minutes.   

And they did!

Edited September 30, 2017 by Calvada

[kassygreene]

Corrected!  With the bonus opportunity to repeat the complete details of what what's-his-name's trip - with his wife.

[attica]

I adore the mocking, condescending, snark with which Rachel covers the trumpists' corruption. Making such fun of "the four palaces!" Is exactly the right tone, imo.  Besides being funny, it serves the function of not normalizing the behavior. 

[Tunia]

7 minutes ago, attica said:

I adore the mocking, condescending, snark  <snip>

it serves the function of not normalizing the behavior. 

which is of MAJOR importance!  We as a nation can't afford to lower the bar to the extent that trump's corruption is acceptable, and then proceed to sink even lower in the future. 

A thousand "likes" to you, attica.

[jjj]

And when she said they saw the Little Mermaid statue, I thought she was joking -- but, yes, it was actually on their itinerary: “Will See Little Mermaid Statue”.   https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/va-chief-took-in-wimbledon-river-cruise-on-european-work-trip/2017/09/29/c1f17046-a458-11e7-8c37-e1d99ad6aa22_story.html?utm_term=.337a992c5276

[attica]

The little mermaid statue is on the route of nearly all the canal tours in Copenhagen. And it's a city chock full of palaces.   When I went there a couple of years ago, I only managed 3. ? (but I did get to Elsinore!) [/travelogue]

[M. Darcy]

Quote

Corrected!  With the bonus opportunity to repeat the complete details of what what's-his-name's trip - with his wife.

That was beautiful how she did it.  

[attica]

All right, this is shallow of me, but the actual content of the show was too depressing for me not to seek a mental escape:  The setting Nevada sun coloring Rachel's already good makeup and pretty lilac shirt? That's why filmmakers call it the Magic Hour. Zounds!