Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
AmandaPanda

All Episodes Discussion: 2017 Season

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, nowandlater said:

 

Oh, man. I feel exactly the same way. But I didn't realize it until I saw that. Yes, I'm frustrated by the constant teases. I watch the show live (or the 9 pm PT rerun). So I sit through the constant commercials. But I've also found myself lately just not processing/ignoring the long 22-minute intro where it goes from something historic and ties it to something recent. I mean, it's a great format. But I hate that she's become so reliant on it.

So true, but tonite that really annoying shtick of hers was particularly annoying.  I came in 10 minutes into the show & she's talking about stuff that happened a week ago?  Er, huh?  Important shit happened today, hun.  Stop wasting air time talkin' about old shit & get to the latest!

Honestly,  I'm at a point with Rach, that I tune her out for the first 20 minutes of her show.  Man, I was screaming at her thru my TV to get the fuck to the Sessions shit already, DAMMIT!!!  I get enough grief from my job & from worrying about Trump.  I don't need more from watching you, Rach.  Please think about giving the history lessons a rest sometimes, will ya, Rach?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

So Rachel reported that the special prosecutor act (statute? executive order?) expired in 1999.  Why wasn't it ever renewed?  Even if Bush didn't, why didn't Obama?  Its disheartening to hear that 45 won't have to follow it and could get a special prosecutor just as much in his pocket as Sessions.

Share this post


Link to post

It wasn't renewed because of Ken Starr and the Whitewater et al investigations, which some people might characterize as the decade long witch-hunt of the Clintons.

Anyway, by 1999 when it was set to expire, nobody in a position to force renewal wanted to; it was that rare bird, a politicized tool that no one wanted to wield.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Although I don't know that 45's crew will care about the leaked DHS memo enough to put the kibosh on another Muslim ban (nor do I think they'll manage to get it past the courts if they try), I did find Rachel's insistence that the important thing is that "[intelligence staffers] want this to be on tv!" compelling. It's like a mutiny!  I'm'a practice my most Laughtonesque "MisTAH ChrisTIAN!" every time we get a story like this. (It's all in the diaphragm.)

"I'm not Sherlock Holmes!" was kind of adorable. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

When Rachel waved the DHS document around last night and said "this says to me that the travel ban is DEAD!", she seemed to forget that the court case on the travel ban is still proceeding, with the next brief from the government/Department of Justice due a week from today.  The DOJ tried to get a delay, but the appeals court refused. The current travel ban has not been rescinded, although it is not being enforced the way it was that first weekend, before the Seattle-based federal court injunction was issued six days later.  

Edited by jjj
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

On 3/2/2017 at 10:08 PM, Hanahope said:

I generally watch the next day while at work , or mostly I listen.  I'm going to start doing podcasts so I can listen during my commute.  Too bad they don't have for Chris or Lawrence.

I only listen on the podcast. I love that this is available and I wish Chris Hayes did it too. 

Share this post


Link to post

I am always happy to see David Cay Johnson. I had, as a matter of fact, bookmarked DCReport last week (after he pimped it on Chris's show), so: yay! Points for me!  Anyway, he's always pleasant, always interesting, and always factual.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I kinda luv that she keeps mentioning AND sniffing around the Russian Fertilizer King.  And she's always reminding how Trump made an easy-peezy 60 mil offa him.  60 mil!!!!  Gah!  Yup, keep on mentioning Fertilizer King, Rach -- and maybe (just maybe) more will get why Trump keeps throwing out bullshit like Bam was tapping him, or that McCarthyism bullshit/babble/nonsense, to take attention away from his vast sinister Russian connections.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

It is pretty suspicious that the fertilizer king's plane kept showing up at the same place as Trump's plane.  Did Rachel say it seemed too co-inky-dinky?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

When Rachel was discussing the Trump dossier and its author "Christopher Steele," and she was tossing around the name as if it were a discarded Ian Fleming creation, I was really hoping she'd finish out the thought by linking it to Remington Steele, glamorous fake PI of the 80s, played by future James Bond Pierce Brosnan. Maybe she's not old enough to have loved RS. Lord knows I did. Which makes me wonder if maybe Stephanie Zimbalist is the actual author of the dossier!

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, attica said:

When Rachel was discussing the Trump dossier and its author "Christopher Steele," and she was tossing around the name as if it were a discarded Ian Fleming creation, I was really hoping she'd finish out the thought by linking it to Remington Steele, glamorous fake PI of the 80s, played by future James Bond Pierce Brosnan. Maybe she's not old enough to have loved RS. Lord knows I did. Which makes me wonder if maybe Stephanie Zimbalist is the actual author of the dossier!

This is so funny, because on Friday, when she was discussing the perfection of the name Christopher Steele, like "James Bond," I also thought about Remington Steele -- whose pseudonym in that series sometimes was "Sterling Gilette" -- and I actually know a Sterling in real life, so the name sounded quite plausible to me.  And I agree that Rachel would like this series, if she has not seen it. 

Edited by jjj
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

So the Russian fertilizer king and trump are both in the same cities, some fairly small, on multiple days, and it's just a coincidence? Yeah sure.  

And I really hope she's right about the wire tapping and warrant, and there's good reason for the warrant we'll eventually be told about which lead to an impeachment.

Love hearing that the Russian dossier is baring fruit.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, netlyon2 said:
Quote

From the link above:  The primetime show delivered 2.5 million total viewers on Thursday and ranked #6 ahead of three broadcast networks: Fox Broadcasting, Univision and ABC.  (emphasis mine)

Heh.  Right now I'm playing my own personal drinking game wherein I get to take a healthy swig every time I hear myself say "Suck it, Fox".  And I keep hearing myself say it.

  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, attica said:

When Rachel was discussing the Trump dossier and its author "Christopher Steele," and she was tossing around the name as if it were a discarded Ian Fleming creation, I was really hoping she'd finish out the thought by linking it to Remington Steele, glamorous fake PI of the 80s, played by future James Bond Pierce Brosnan. Maybe she's not old enough to have loved RS. Lord knows I did. Which makes me wonder if maybe Stephanie Zimbalist is the actual author of the dossier!

My mind went there, too. If we could just get Laura Holt on this Russia thing, it would be solved in no time.

I came here to post this: More about how Rachel's strategy for covering the new administration is paying off in ratings: http://www.thewrap.com/rachel-maddow-ratings-surge-trump-twitter-feed-stop/

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I had to post the latest ratings info to my brother in law, who claims Rachel is "fake news" every time I link him another one of Rachel's 45-Russian connection stories.  He use to snidely claim that Rachel got the lowest ratings, lower than Fox and CNN.  Haha, I'm laughing now.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Aha! I saw this piece this morning and wondered what bee flew up this guy's nose, and coming here, seeing all the RM-kicks-ass-in-ratings coverage, it's all a bit clearer! (Before you click through, I will warn you that it's about a guy mansplaining to a lesbian.) Nothing gets up a wingnut's nose like finding out the other side is popular-er than you!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

The shaky bridge was a hoot & The New Yorker story (& the writer) was fascinating stuff, but I wish she woulda gotten to some discussion of healthcare.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

How slick was Ivanka lying & showing pictures from the Four Seasons Hotel in Baku claiming to be from the Trump Hotel, one hour away.  Man, that family is incorrigible!!!

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

A million years ago when I was in college, they showed that same bridge clip to us in physics class.  Some people cheered when the bridge collapsed and the professor said he hoped they weren't the architecture and civil engineering students.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Quilt Fairy said:

A million years ago when I was in college, they showed that same bridge clip to us in physics class.  Some people cheered when the bridge collapsed and the professor said he hoped they weren't the architecture and civil engineering students.

Yes, all that footage was from the day that the bridge collapsed -- that was not a normal day on the bridge!  And she left out the part that a dog was in that car, and died.  People really tried to get it off the bridge.  I'm going to have to watch the opening again to understand all the connections. 

Edited by jjj

Share this post


Link to post

I always listen to the podcast, but today I had to go find the video to see why Susan thought Rachel was looking at dirty pictures. Now we know why Trump wanted to grab that building.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

The shape of that hotel, from the front view, if you let your eyes lose focus slightly, could be seen as (warning, once you see it you can't unsee it)

Spoiler

female genitalia.

Share this post


Link to post

The word you seek, Rachel, is 'yonic.' In SAT terms, yonic : phallic :: girl : boy. And, yeah, that was my first thought when the photo of the building facade appeared. Especially funny that none of the cab drivers could find it! If that ain't a metaphor, I don't know what is!

10 hours ago, Quilt Fairy said:

Some people cheered when the bridge collapsed and the professor said he hoped they weren't the architecture and civil engineering students.

I went to uni at a place known for turning out engineers. One of the more engineering profs had campus-wide renown for never giving partial credit on his math-heavy exams. His reasoning? "Bridge falls down, no partial credit!" Which, for as much as it enraged his students, it's a pretty solid argument. I thought of him fondly watching the footage of the undulating bridge. (I can't imagine being on it in those conditions. Yikes!)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, attica said:

The word you seek, Rachel, is 'yonic.' In SAT terms, yonic : phallic :: girl : boy. And, yeah, that was my first thought when the photo of the building facade appeared. Especially funny that none of the cab drivers could find it! If that ain't a metaphor, I don't know what is!

I went to uni at a place known for turning out engineers. One of the more engineering profs had campus-wide renown for never giving partial credit on his math-heavy exams. His reasoning? "Bridge falls down, no partial credit!" Which, for as much as it enraged his students, it's a pretty solid argument. I thought of him fondly watching the footage of the undulating bridge. (I can't imagine being on it in those conditions. Yikes!)

Good one ... LOL!!!

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah, Rach gave me a giggle when she said Susan thought she was lookin' at dirty pics, when she saw the pic of that truly hideous building.  I was thinkin' it was Trump's vision of what he wanted to grab at -- but I know Rach wouldn't go there.  Or would she?

Luv what the reporter was saying -- how this was merely one of what's probably countless shady Trump business deals abroad.  And I luved that Rach showed Ivanka sharing her sunny bullshit.  This is Ivanka (and Jared too) all over.  Putting on a happy face to bullshit, but when scrutiny comes along, she dodges out quick -- or trots out her toddlers to hide behind.

Edited by ScoobieDoobs
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

So why wasn't this info about the trump tower in Baku, almost certainly funded by illegal and terrorist money, which is completely illegal in the US, brought to light before the election?  There didn't appear to be any information that couldn't have been discovered prior to the election.  This kind of stuff would have been gold back in October.  Obviously trump only got out of the deal because of the election.

OMG that bridge was scary.  I always get a little woozy over big long bridges like that, and now I feel like I have some justification.  And of course, another tangential introduction and winding way to get to the main story.  Seatac - Bridge - Bechtel - Baku - trump.  

I did appreciate the lesson, if something doesn't make financial sense on its face, it probably makes financial sense underneath.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Hanahope said:

So why wasn't this info about the trump tower in Baku, almost certainly funded by illegal and terrorist money, which is completely illegal in the US, brought to light before the election?  

According to the reporter working on the story in his on-air discussion, he'd been working on it for a long time, and only now had it nailed down enough to publish. If nobody's watching Azerbaijani real estate deals (nobody critical, anyway), how could it?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

6 minutes ago, attica said:

If nobody's watching Azerbaijani real estate deals (nobody critical, anyway), how could it?

I guess that goes to show that the tweets and other "circus acts" do their job in distracting the media, so they don't investigate these stories like they should.  I'm glad that some are finally doing so and that Rachel is broadcasting their efforts, with her 'follow what he does, not what he says' philosophy.

Oh and republicans in Montana, way to put party over taxpayers/citizens/country.  Lets cost the taxpayers more money instead of risking them elect someone the majority might want over your nominee.

Edited by Hanahope
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

See media follow Rachel's lead, because I don't think  she mentioned not once, Trump's wire tapping claim, and I was thankful. I sorta expected that she wouldn't because that's what he and his thugs want, for all the media to cover it. She never takes the bait. I don't think LOD mentioned it either, they know what's up.

So basically, Trump is/was doing business with a business man who supports Iranian terrorist groups and that's against the law. Did I get that right?

So again, where are the rest of the losers in the media? Why isn't this story on loop on every credible news outlet? Or is it? Because I haven't been watching, so maybe I missed it. Was it covered on Morning Joe? Or are they going to wait weeks, months like they did to cover her story on the secretary of commerce with Brian Williams and Chris Matthews preempting her show and MSNBC trying to act like those two dickwads are presenting new information?... Information that Rachel has been covering for months.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Keepitmoving said:

So basically, Trump is/was doing business with a business man who supports Iranian terrorist groups and that's against the law. Did I get that right?

Yes, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which it seems is a law that's taken seriously, according to the journalist who dug into this and wrote the story.  And you can't say, "Ooops, I didn't know he was notoriously corrupt and supports terrorists groups!"  The law says you have to do your due diligence.  And the journalist said this is one of dozens of questionable deals.  And he's President now, so he and his family have opened themselves up to blackmail.  And he asked the Trumps if they had done their due diligence, and they kept saying yes but wouldn't show any work, so, well, it seems like they are corrupt top to bottom and just out to get a buck, laws and ethics and rich terrorists be damned. 

But, yannow, we don't need to have an independent investigation because reasons, unfathomable reasons.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Drats!  Nothing tonite about Trump vagina buildings, built in cahoots with corrupt Russian billionaire politicians.  But at least we saw the return of Steele, Christopher Steele.  Kinda luved how Rach said outright she was not gonna scream over Trump's ridiculous (her word) tweets -- that it's NOT his (or his awful crew's) words we should be focusing on, but his actions!  

Yay, Hawaii -- for being the first to go against the orange evil one's new ban.  Uh, and just why does Rach seem to be the first & only one reporting on this?

Edited by ScoobieDoobs
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, Hanahope said:

So why wasn't this info about the trump tower in Baku, almost certainly funded by illegal and terrorist money, which is completely illegal in the US, brought to light before the election?  There didn't appear to be any information that couldn't have been discovered prior to the election.  This kind of stuff would have been gold back in October.  Obviously trump only got out of the deal because of the election.

 

That reporter from Newsweek - Eichenwald I think? - was doing a lot of digging into Trump's business deals before the election but he couldn't get anyone else in the media to pay any attention to what he was dredging up. Rachel used to make a big deal about breaking his stories the night before and urging everyone to read them but no one else in the media gave a damn. They were all too busy losing their snot over Hillary's emails and chasing every SQUIRREL! that the orange buffoon unleashed on them everyday. I remember he had some stories about Azerbaijan hijinks and problems with Turkey sleazeballs and many other of Trumps shenanigans but it was far too big a job for him to do by himself although he gave it a valiant effort.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

I was delighted to see the appearance of (Not Remington) Christopher Steele. And I immediately decided who could play him in the movie: Christopher Guest. Or Martin Freeman. Or, ideally, the love child of Christopher Guest and Martin Freeman.

I wonder if Rachel has to replace her copy of "the dossier" for every show she references it on. I mean, she brandishes it about with a vigor that most copier paper can't withstand for long. :)

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

My husband and I were in our 20s during Watergate, and Rachel's reporting of the Russian connection/interference reminds us both so much of how that scandal unfolded - day by day, drip by drip. I'm horrified by this. With everything in Republican control, I'm concerned the Russian interference and control won't be properly investigated. Keep on it Rachel. This is big stuff. 

ETA: This makes Watergate look like petty larceny.

Edited by chessiegal
  • Like 18

Share this post


Link to post

Now I'm not sure whether Trump will be brought down by collusion with Russians during the campaign or by shady business practices like Azerbaijan. So far I haven't seen big coverage of the latter except by Rachel and the New Yorker. Frankly, I'd like to see investigators (journalistic and governmental) go full bore on both issues—both seem likely to yield presidency-killing blows. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

I'm so glad Rachel is staying on top of both topics - collusion with Russia, and the corrupt business practices - because both are so serious and go way beyond the daily fuckery of this administration.  As Rachel asked, if this was all going on during the campaign, what makes anything think it stopped after the election?  What else is going on NOW when these treasonous treasoners who treasoned have access to highly confidential information??  I guess it really IS a good thing that DT doesn't take his Daily Briefs.  The less he knows about anything, the less likely to give it to Putin.

I am so interested in knowing if Congress (Adam Schiff) will really get a chance to talk with Christopher Steele and get something on record! 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

I thought the A & B blocks were really strong last night. But thinking about the whole collusion/quid pro quo thing, I'm wondering: is that (if true) actually illegal? Is it actually treason? I mean, I get that in a normal year, playing footsie with the Russians would be a political body blow, but maybe not so much this year. And I don't know enough about the laws regarding this kind of thing to know what the criminal ramifications are.  (Putting aside whether there will be an independent body to even pursue criminal ramifications, for the mo.)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

It seems like it would have to be treason to gut an important government agency because it helps the foreign policy of another country. The State Department stuff is really terrifying. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

I thought she said the other night that collusion with the Russian government in hacking into our election was illegal.  And apparently the work with the Iranian Republican Guard money laundering scheme is illegal as well.  I also understand that "treason" is any act that places the interests of a foreign government ahead of our own country.  I would think that approving certain policies in favor of Russia that are not really favorable to America would qualify, such as policies that work to undermine America's work with Europe.

As she said though, there's no indication of any Congressional investigation at this time, the Reps are so far denying there's anything to investigate.  The demand is going to have to become much bigger and pressure Congress.  Its hard to know how much and how long that will take.  And the rest of the media will probably need to get on board and report these findings as well, and quit giving all their attention to the brain fart tweets of 45

Edited by Hanahope
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

23 minutes ago, Hanahope said:

And apparently the work with the Iranian Republican Guard money laundering scheme is illegal as well.

Yeah; she covered that in detail the other day. I was reminded when I noticed a co-commuter of mine carrying a spiffy Dooney & Bourke bag and I thought, "Hey, that's the dude Rachel said is in jail!"

The hollowing out of the State Department makes me terribly sad, and not just in a geopolitical sense. In my job, I've had occasion to work with foreign service staffers at various US embassies around the world, and I've always been so impressed with how smart and professional and idealistic (but not naive) they've been. Made me feel proud and patriotic. Knowing they're getting the bum's rush out is. well, a bummer.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

The key State Department employees have 150 combined years of knowledge and experience.  Firing them gives us so much insight into the agenda of this administration - fuck things up as fast as possible.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

The primetime show delivered 2.5 million total viewers on Thursday and ranked #6 ahead of three broadcast networks: Fox Broadcasting, Univision and ABC.  (emphasis mine)

Quote

Heh.  Right now I'm playing my own personal drinking game wherein I get to take a healthy swig every time I hear myself say "Suck it, Fox". 

It pains me to say that the first quote above is referencing Fox Broadcasting, not Fox News.  I'm very happy to see Rachel's surge in ratings, though.  Fingers crossed that she will one day overtake Fox News.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Did Rachel really, really have to prop up the reanimated corpse of Andrea Bitchell to make the point that the administration is dodging the media?  

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

It pains me to say that the first quote above is referencing Fox Broadcasting, not Fox News. 

Oh. Drat.

Share this post


Link to post

OK, so Rach has been driving the point, for now the 2nd nite, that Tillerson seems useless & out of touch & the state department is being drastically reduced (which she said Putin will be thrilled by).  But did she make a Jared connection tonite?  OK, she did say Jared was the one taking those meetings with foreign dignitaries coming here & def NOT Tillerson.  But she didn't say Jared is pretty much seeming to be the doing the job of Secretary of State.  Is she getting ready to make that connection?

Her guest tonite made an interesting statement.  Certainly what he said about Russian sentiments toward the US was fascinating, and should make EVERY American deeply disturbed about Trump's Putin adoration.  BUT the 3 State Department employees who are out may have been ready to retire.  Rach's guest emphasized he was NOT fired.  He said he wasn't asked back to work for this administration.  He said that wasn't unusual.  But it's extremely interesting to note what he said was highly unusual -- that he wasn't asked to remain until a replacement was found.  So will there be any replacements for these highly experienced State Department employees?  This, along with Tillerson's non-performance as a supposed Secretary of State, AND the ALWAYS grinning Jared, seeming to be doing Tillerson's job, by meeting with foreign dignitaries, while Tillerson is unaware of their presence in the US (according to his own staff -- as per Rach tonite), is really troubling & scary!

Idk, Rach's healthcare coverage seems lacking to me.  She seems to be taking a different approach than anyone else in media.  Everyone else seems to be screaming the sky is falling.  Rach seems to be calmly assuming everything Repubs in Congress are doing now is gonna ultimately fail to pass, so she seems to be (to me) almost shrugging off what's going on now.  Maybe she's right, but the Repub shenanigans over healthcare is just making me nervous as hell.

Edited by ScoobieDoobs
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I think Rachel is letting the healthcare issue take a bit of a 'back seat' for her, because so many others are focusing on that and not so many are focusing on the on going Russian connections and connecting the dots, that began during the campaign, the way she has been doing.  She's "filling" that gap, so to speak, and doing a bang up job.  Its truly terrifying how our state department is being decimated, and how that works to Putin's advantage, especially in his continued attempts to break up the united Europe so it won't be able to stand against it.  

I find it so meaningful that the only thing the trump campaign was interested in was softening the Ukraine/Russia stance, and that occurred immediately after a meeting that trump's people had with russian officials.  And then the timing of all the wikileaks dumps.  Its possible that there will never be full and complete "direct evidence" against trump, but all the circumstantial evidence is piling up.

Edited by Hanahope
  • Like 14

Share this post


Link to post

Every other outlet under the sun is going after the healthcare story, and doing a good job of describing the drawbacks of the R drafts. Very few people are connecting the dots on Russia the way Rachel is, and almost no one is talking about the State Department the way she is. So, I'm happy to have her spend more time on what she's been doing. If the healthcare drafts look like they're getting closer to actually getting somewhere, I'm sure she'll take the time then to do an incisive takedown. At this point, it looks like there is nothing that will pass.

ETA: Hanahope—comment twins!

Edited by ahisma
  • Like 11

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size