Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
AmandaPanda

All Episodes Discussion: 2017 Season

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, navelgazer said:

Don't get me wrong, I've been watching with fascination Rachel connecting all of the dots of the Twitler/Russia collusion.  I just wish I knew I could trust Rachel.  Unfortunately I'm still on the fence about her.  I want to believe that she is being so thorough and dogged about Manafort, et. al., because she genuinely believes there's fire under all of this smoke we're seeing, but I suspect she's straining so hard because she's angry that her girl didn't get the White House and Rachel is personally vested in toppling this cabal of criminals now in charge of our government.  

Whatever her reasons for being on top of the Trump-Russia connections, I don't care.  I just hope she keeps going relentlessly.  I haven't heard anywhere else about the guy who fell or was thrown from his 4th floor apartment, just before he was supposed to testify against Putin people.  And the story she talked about tonite, of the man who supposedly turned against the Putin govt., fled to Ukraine & was violently shot dead in the street by a hit man.  Eek!  OK, it's in NYT, but where else?  

Another story Rach told tonite, I've heard nowhere else -- about the one holdout (in the Russian equivalent of Congress) against taking over Ukraine, who ended up being criminally charged & was forced to flee & remain in exile.  Gah!  And Putin is the one who Trump luvs, worships & admires?  Lord help us all.

As far as Manafort goes, he has been able to get away with casual denials.  If Rach stays on him, I'm hoping that will change.

And Bernie?  I've never been a Bernie fan, but I like much of his rhetoric.  Always have.  Just not confident he can accomplish anything.  But he was very articulate tonite in summing up what needs to be done.  I wasn't thrilled by his talk of Dems being "weak".  While probably true, it's NOT helpful.  And his talk of a "revolution", I really didn't care for.  Does he use that word to perk up the millenials?  Turned me off, but I'm a Gen-X'er.

Glad she took some time off Russia tonite to cover healthcare.  Interesting how she drastically changed her tune about it tonite.  She's constantly been saying it'll be DOA & giving bored looks to the cam when discussing anything about it.  But tonite, for the first time, I heard her say it could possibly pass.  Actually, I hated hearing her say that cuz it scared the shit outta me.

Edited by ScoobieDoobs
  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post

7 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

She said something quick last nite I thought was really interesting.  She said she was one of the few in media who didn't go crazy over Trump's tweet about being tapped.  She didn't state why exactly.  But she said she has been asking how we know about what Flynn said to the Russian ambassador.  Yeah, it was from a leak.  But what Rach meant is -- was Flynn himself under surveillance?  Was Flynn tapped incidentally because of speaking to the ambassador -- or was Intel tapping him anyway?

What I'm getting from Rach, even tho she didn't say it outright, is she suspects Trump & his staff may well have been (and continues to be) under surveillance by Intel.  So maybe Rach suspects his tweet wasn't completely wrong about being tapped.  But of course, the part about Bam ordering it is false.

What I'm surprised at is she's not implying what an idiot he was for spotlighting being under surveillance by Intel, because it means there is some sinister reason for them to justify doing it in the first place.

Rach may be cool as a cucumber talking about the healthcare stuff, but it all makes me nervous as hell.

 

A couple of weeks ago (a month ago, a lifetime ago, a few days ago), sometime around the time Flynn was forced out, Rachel pointed out that while Intel agencies can listen into conversations between foreigners, if a foreign person starts talking to an American citizen, they have to stop (or to mask it; I can't remember which she said). She then specifically went on to say that what we know about Flynn must mean there is a FISA warrant on him. I have no idea if she is correct, but it sounded right, at the time. I wish I could remember more, but at that time, she was very specific that if/since our Intelligence agencies have listened to Flynn's convos, he must be under a FISA warrant. 

 

2 hours ago, navelgazer said:

I spent most of election season loathing Rachel because of her over-the-top partisanship in favor of HRC.  I am truly amazed that Senator Sanders still agrees to sit down and talk to her given how badly she slanted her coverage of him during the Democratic primary.  (Jimmy Dore did a brutal YouTube series on when Rachel allowed "dean of Nevada political reporting" Jon Ralston to lie on her show about the "violence" and "throwing chairs" that didn't happen at the Nevada Democratic Party state convention in Las Vegas.  There was no violence.  There were no chairs thrown.  Yet Rachel let Ralston repeat the bogus story he alone reported on and he wasn't even in the room at the time.  His own reporting was secondhand.  And to add insult to injury, Rachel has never done a Debunktion Junction to acknowledge her error.)

Don't get me wrong, I've been watching with fascination Rachel connecting all of the dots of the Twitler/Russia collusion.  I just wish I knew I could trust Rachel.  Unfortunately I'm still on the fence about her.  I want to believe that she is being so thorough and dogged about Manafort, et. al., because she genuinely believes there's fire under all of this smoke we're seeing, but I suspect she's straining so hard because she's angry that her girl didn't get the White House and Rachel is personally vested in toppling this cabal of criminals now in charge of our government.  

 

Ah, see, until Hillary won the nomination, I thought Rachel's coverage skewed more in favor of Bernie. I don't remember specifics like you do, just my overall impression that (until Hill won the Democratic nomination) I thought of Rachel (and Chris Hayes) as Bernie cheerleaders. 

While I love him, I didn't think Sanders could beat Trump, because the word "socialist" is like red meat to so much of the country. I also thought HRC could beat Trump though, so clearly, I know nothing and am very stupid. 

Edited by General Days · Reason: extraneous word; spacing
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

Bernie was a regular on Ed Schultz's show long before he was "anyone".  But he drove me crazy with all his free everything for everyone mantra then, and now.

However, I thought he was did a great job last night with Rachel, trying to rally the troops.

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

However, I thought he was did a great job last night with Rachel, trying to rally the troops.

I never disliked Bernie, he got me annoyed a time or two during the campaign, but I never disliked him and thought he made valid points. But I'm kinda moderate so "free" doesn't resonate with me, "fair share" does, but not free. But he is steadfast in getting up off his ass and working hands on with the people and I still don't see enough of the democratic representatives doing it like he does.  I totally agree with him, I should be sick of seeing your ass if you're my rep., why? Because you are constantly holding town halls, walking the streets of neighborhoods, checking in with the locals. But that's not what happens. I would really like to know honestly, what do they do all day? Are they really up on the Hill arguing and making cases for or against the passing of bills all day, every day?  No they aren't, they can't be, they're always on vacation. So where are they and what do they do on average day?

Edited by Keepitmoving
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I am torn between "Rachel will be OK because the Russians realize she's high profile and they won't mess with her" and "Hope to GOD MSNBC has given her a massive security force". Putin's opponents do not fare well. 

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post

2 minutes ago, bad things are bad said:

I am torn between "Rachel will be OK because the Russians realize she's high profile and they won't mess with her" and "Hope to GOD MSNBC has given her a massive security force". Putin's opponents do not fare well. 

She once said in a podcast that MSNBC has sharp shooters on the roof of the building, LOL.  Ezra Klein was asking her about her safety, I think the podcast was from early last year.

But seriously, I do hope that there is protection. 

Edited by Keepitmoving
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Idk about Rachel being in any danger because of her anti-Russia/Putin talk.  They seem to zero in on people who are in Russia or flee from there, don't they?

Guess Rach shoulda just continued with her confident talk of the healthcare bill being DOA, rather changing her tune last nite & saying it could pass.  Still don't get why she did that.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Guess Rach shoulda just continued with her confident talk of the healthcare bill being DOA, rather changing her tune last nite & saying it could pass.  Still don't get why she did that.

 

I'm glad Rachel allowed for the possibility, because one can never tell with Republicans. Big R or little r, republicans have a twisted habit of not caring if they shoot themselves in the foot as long as they get to shoot everybody else, too. Not to mention complacency--and Russia--are what got us here in the first place.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

"That's how things tend to go in countries like that --*Ivanka*," said Rachel, Friday, talking about subversive meetings of Flynn and the son-in-law of the Turkish President, *who happens to be the Energy Minister*.  (Then Rachel dropped her head and said in a small voice, "<sorry>")

I can barely even keep up with a single episode anymore, because there is so much international intrigue and rogues' galleries.  It is like a cross between a Russian novel with a thousand characters and a John le Carré novel. 

Edited by jjj
  • Like 18

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, jjj said:

"That's how things tend to go in countries like that --*Ivanka*," said Rachel, Friday, talking about subversive meetings of Flynn and the son-in-law of the Turkish President, *who happens to be the Energy Minister*.  (Then Rachel dropped her head and said in a small voice, "<sorry>")

She wasn't sorry for a nanosecond.  I laughed out loud.  For real.

  • Like 14

Share this post


Link to post

1 hour ago, jjj said:

"That's how things tend to go in countries like that --*Ivanka*," said Rachel, Friday, talking about subversive meetings of Flynn and the son-in-law of the Turkish President, *who happens to be the Energy Minister*.  (Then Rachel dropped her head and said in a small voice, "<sorry>")

Oh, I really enjoyed that.  And it was even better that she said Ivanka (oh Ms. Perfect-perfect/Above-it-all herself), rather than do an all-too-obvious Jared mention.  I also luved her flashing those ridiculously idiotic pro-Trump propaganda covers of The Enquirer.

Another mention of the Russian fertilizer king, eh?  OK, she had absolutely justified reason for the quick mention.  I don't even think she said his name, just that he was the Russian who Trump made a fast 60 mil flipping a Palm Beach house to.  Still, I get the impression she's tickled by the op to mention Fertilizer King on her show.  OK by me.

Just stay all over Manafort & Nunes, Rach!

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

Oh, I'm going to watch that segment again on the rerun, to sort out all the characters and subterfuge -- but mainly to hear "*Ivanka*" again!

Have I mentioned lately how glad I am that they are no longer going to prison after her show in Fridays?  Even though I miss her saying that?

ETA:  Wow, they actually added the "Eleventh Hour" tonight -- rare for a Friday!

Edited by jjj
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

I kinda like Rach's signoff chats with LOD.  Tonite's was particularly good.  LOD correctly pointed why this Repub healthcare bill failed so badly.  Because so much of the public was so much against it.  And where was that seen?  In those town hall meetings, which Rachel showed nightly.  LOD thanked her for showing so many of those meetings & covering the reactions of people against repealing ACA.  Did Rach lend a hand in leading this shitty health bill to failure?  Sure looks like it.

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post

Schumer, in tonight's interview: "This president needs to learn to lead leave." Fixed that for you!

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

maddow 03-24-17.png  "That's how things tend to go in countries like that --*Ivanka*"

But her expression and gesture are saying, "Mwah-ha-ha"

Edited by jjj
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

I appreciated her caution Thursday night about assuming the bill was dead, because they were making a final push.  Historically a Speaker lets a bill like that go to vote when he has the votes, or he can arm twist the votes he needs.  There was a very faint chance that Paul Ryan was skillful enough to do that. 

After all, there was a very faint chance that Donald Trump would be elected President.

Instead, what was a very bad bill that with all the Xmas tree decorations added to it became a doubly bad bill could not pass; a whole bunch of GOP Congress-critters realized that they can't actually be seriously roughed up by the Speaker or the President; telegenic Paul Ryan is once again (finally?) shown to be an empty shell (how do you seriously agitate for repeal for seven years without working out what the freaking plan would be? at the very least Ryan should have done what we all do when we buy a lottery ticket and dream of the 9 figure payout - make a list!); the President was shown to be ineffective (it takes a politician to practice the art of politics).

But in this century the House has snatched a winning vote from certain loss a lot of times - those guys traditionally play rough.  So Rachel was right to be cautious.

And somewhere in America, possibly on the road in his RV, perhaps at home planning his spring landscaping, John Boehner remains the happiest republican in all the land.

  • Like 16

Share this post


Link to post

2 hours ago, kassygreene said:

And somewhere in America, possibly on the road in his RV, perhaps at home planning his spring landscaping, John Boehner remains the happiest republican in all the land.

I picture him sitting on Obama's sun-dappled porch, and they're rocking their chairs and sipping their drinks and cackling.

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post

We're going off the rails on a crazy train.  Yep, that sums up the first half hour of last night's show.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Week Two of the "Russian names really confuse me" drama?

A million years ago I did TV and radio production - all aspects of it?

At the walk thru - before we aired or taped - we'd get feedback on awkward names or phrases.

We'd find out the names or terms that were causing problems - and write them out  FO-NET-E-CAH-LEE.

------

It's really hard to go on-line to get MORE information on a person, when the chucklehead giving you a lead cannot pronounce 'hard/foreign/Russian names'.

Rush-an Oh-leh-garks?

Indeed!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

So Rep. Adam Schiff has been so prominent on Rachel lately that I decided to look him up.

And it turns out he represents Los Angeles, where I live.

So I decided to look at his district borders.

And, well, he's not my congressman .... But I live on a residential street corner in Los Angeles, and the other 3 street corners fall in Schiff's district. (I moved from Oakland to L.A. last summer, and of course I knew who my rep was there (the great Barbara Lee).

Anyways, I should pay more attention to Maddow.

Edited by nowandlater
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Schiff, besides sharing the name of a teevee DA, was a US Attorney that specialized in spy cases.  Contrast that to committee chair Nunes, whose background is in agribusiness. Which is not to suggest that a public servant can't ably learn new ropes (c.f Al Franken), but DN's actions of late don't demonstrate he has done so.

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post

4 hours ago, nowandlater said:

So Rep. Adam Schiff has been so prominent on Rachel lately that I decided to look him up.

And it turns out he represents Los Angeles, where I live.

So I decided to look at his district borders.

And, well, he's not my congressman .... But I live on a residential street corner in Los Angeles, and the other 3 street corners fall in Schiff's district. (I moved from Oakland to L.A. last summer, and of course I knew who my rep was there (the great Barbara Lee).

Anyways, I should pay more attention to Maddow.

You know, you reminded me of something I wish Rach would do.  Since she's covering those town hall meetings so much & talking about grass roots movements every nite, I wish she'd turn to the cam & say -- Do you know who your Congress reps are & what they're doing in Congress?  

It's shocking how many people don't know who their reps are -- or what they're up to.  I've often been fuzzy about who my reps are & what they're doing.  Now I'm not & I actually read the newsletters they send.  I really like her message that people can make a difference.  And I like that she stresses it doesn't always work, but we're now seeing how people insisting on being heard can & often do have an influential impact on government.  It's very hopeful.  And in this seemingly endless era of Trump, we need hope anywhere we can get it.

Edited by ScoobieDoobs
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

What night did Rachel do the *Ivanka* thing? I somehow missed it.

I just rewatched Friday's episode on MSNBC, thinking it was that one. They just re-aired her show, and are now airing Friday's Last Word also. So much better than weekends filled with prison shows, MSNBC! 

Share this post


Link to post

I thought it was last night so I watched two times after I got the heads-up here but I never did catch that part. :(

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, gatopretoNYC said:

What night did Rachel do the *Ivanka* thing? I somehow missed it.

I just rewatched Friday's episode on MSNBC, thinking it was that one. They just re-aired her show, and are now airing Friday's Last Word also.

Yes, it was Friday's show. It was subtle, which was part of the beauty of it, lowering her voice at the end of the sentence when she said "Ivanka".  This came in the first segment, as she was starting to talk about the planned "kidnapping" (AKA "unauthorized extradition") of the Turkish cleric living in the Poconos.  She had started by mentioning Mike Flynn and two current Turkish ministers, one of whom is the son-in-law of the Turkish president.  That's when she added the "*Ivanka*" line.  It would be easy to miss.  Then she quickly said "sorry". 

1 hour ago, suomi said:

I thought it was last night so I watched two times after I got the heads-up here but I never did catch that part. :(

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, suomi said:

I thought it was last night so I watched two times after I got the heads-up here but I never did catch that part. :(

I just re-watched on On Demand & it's at 16 minutes in.  Actually I was wondering if she was maybe sending a subliminal message to Ivanka, but nah, didn't seem like it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 3/23/2017 at 11:54 PM, General Days said:

 

A couple of weeks ago (a month ago, a lifetime ago, a few days ago), sometime around the time Flynn was forced out, Rachel pointed out that while Intel agencies can listen into conversations between foreigners, if a foreign person starts talking to an American citizen, they have to stop (or to mask it; I can't remember which she said). She then specifically went on to say that what we know about Flynn must mean there is a FISA warrant on him. I have no idea if she is correct, but it sounded right, at the time. I wish I could remember more, but at that time, she was very specific that if/since our Intelligence agencies have listened to Flynn's convos, he must be under a FISA warrant. 

 

 

Ah, see, until Hillary won the nomination, I thought Rachel's coverage skewed more in favor of Bernie. I don't remember specifics like you do, just my overall impression that (until Hill won the Democratic nomination) I thought of Rachel (and Chris Hayes) as Bernie cheerleaders. 

While I love him, I didn't think Sanders could beat Trump, because the word "socialist" is like red meat to so much of the country. I also thought HRC could beat Trump though, so clearly, I know nothing and am very stupid. 

Perception is a funny thing.  I always thought the opposite.  I felt like she wasn't giving Bernie his due.  Bernie was drawing crowds in the thousands and MSNBC didn't even mention it until it was so in your face it had to be talked about.  I even felt that the DNC was working against Bernie with the debate schedule.  I did feel as you that Bernie being a socialist didn't stand a chance against #45.  HRC would have and should have won had the playing field been level.  There were just too many things and outside interference working against her.

But no matter how we spin it, 62 million voters thought #45 deserved the white house.  That's a lot of people and to this day it's hard for me to stomach them.  This election has changed me in so many ways, and not for the better I'm afraid. 

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post

Quote

 

That's how things tend to go in countries like that --*Ivanka*," said Rachel, Friday, talking about subversive meetings of Flynn and the son-in-law of the Turkish President, *who happens to be the Energy Minister*.  (Then Rachel dropped her head and said in a small voice, "<sorry>")

 

 

I kind of half heard that and was like "did she just say what I think she said". 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

If Rachel can get around to it, I would like her to have Bernie back on and/or get a hold of the healthcare proposal he just put out, and I'd like her to go through it on her show. I really would, or maybe Chris Hayes can do it. Because if it  truly makes Obamacare better, then I would like every establishment democrat who is remaining quiet in supporting it to be put on blast. Because they are still full of shit. I don't know how many times they'll need to get the message that nobody is playing with them anymore. We'll throw their asses right over on the Trump/Russia pile, many of us already have.  This is not the first time that Bernie has put actual details down on paper where healthcare is concerned, so let's get into the weeds of exactly what he has long been proposing, it would be helpful if the media would finally tackle this.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Great show last nite, Rach!  You were all over Jared, Nunes, Carl Icahn's insanely greedy, sneaky bullshit & we even got an eye-popping display of what vast corrupt wealth Putin's employees enjoy.  Wowza!  And the Russian "sperm bank", whose KGB-trained head is the guy that widdle innocent Jared casually met with.  Keep on it, Rach.  Luv it!

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

One thing she did that really dropped my jaw was rattling off the incredible list of responsibilities that Jared has been assigned. Most news sources mention just one or two in addition to the new one. Really underlined what an insane administration it is.

  • Like 15

Share this post


Link to post

I'm inordinately happy that Richard Engel has a big story to cover that (probably) doesn't involve active shooting/drone strikes. Sunning in Cyprus while working the laundering banksters seems like a good gig!

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post

"Scandal menu", eh, Rach?  God, it's exhausting.  But I knew I could count on Rach to explain the ramifications of what happened today.  Honestly, I was lost at what the latest Nunes crap meant.  Interrupter Matthews & the rest of the MSNBC clowns (other than Rach & my gurl Joy Reid) just endlessly re-played Spicer spouting his usual useless bullshit.  What does that accomplish in understanding any of this?  Nothing.  Absa-fuckin-lutely nothing!  Ah, but Rach was asking some really great pointed questions on what we should all be asking about this Nunes shit.

Hmmm, her mentions of Jared sound pretty darn snarky.  Me likey -- a lot!  And she mentions "nepotism" -- and then just flashes a pic of smiling Ivanka in one of her 4 thousand dollar getups.  Very subtle, Rach.  

Edited by ScoobieDoobs
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

What a day! I'm glad she gave good depth to both Flynn's request for immunity and the shady White House characters who tipped off Nunes. (Flynn's lawyer's letter reminds me of when Rachel showed the National Enquirer cover with "Trump caught the Russian spy in the White House!" I'm just not sure whether Flynn will ask for immunity and then take all the blame to leave Trump in the clear, or whether he is willing to testify against Trump but knows that the White House will be trying to pin it all on him.) 

I really liked Rachel's editorial. I feel like there needs to be some kind of website or newspaper whose layout emphasizes what Rachel has been talking about, "This (Manafort, Flynn, Jared meetings with Russians) is important and this (Republican platform on Ukraine) is important ... and these (Trump Florida house sale, Azerbaijan deal, Pence not firing Flynn, DNC email hacks). Also important are these (Icahn self dealing, "fake news" from Russia and Eastern European countries). These should not be ignored (Pruitt emails, cost of Secret Service coverage). These are not important distractions that can be dealt with in two sentences ("Obama wire tapps," whose goods Nordstroms carries, pretty much anything from Trump's Twitter account)." I hate seeing red herrings take over the headlines and not hearing more about Icahn, etc.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

Joy gave Rachel a very good toss (even though it was the other way around). "Amen!"  I would like Joy to 'amen' me someday. #goals.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I would like to see Rachel's staff find one more story unrelated to 45 and Russia for each broadcast, so every day she could cut about 10 minutes of repeating over and over again the same things we know because she has said them many times before.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I couldn't quite get a bead on how old Clinton Watts is (and some googling didn't unearth the info either), so I'm gonna go ahead and cast him with John Hawkes. David Strathairn is a better face match, but I think the wrong age by a bunch.

For all his think tank experience, I haven't seen Watts on tv much. Good get for TRMS!  I gotta say, there's something powerfully appealing about a dude who can give exact citations of various nefarious events right off the top of his head. "On 14 October, this arcane and specific thing happened. On 26 June, this other different thing happened, but they're related, and here's how!"

Interesting hour, tip to toe.

Edited by attica
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

Interesting hour, tip to toe.

Agreed!

Go ahead, Ned Price, tell us how you really feel! Refreshing to see a guest who is not holding back in the least.

Russian active measures on the Alaska petition were nuts! Loved Clinton Watts' stories of spearphishing campaigns during the primaries and election. This being more than "not Hillary" and the Trump campaign amplifying Russian disinformation is a lot more circumstantial evidence of Trump collusion. 

Edited by ahisma · Reason: because apostrophes matter
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

Idk, I like Watts too, but I thought this was getting repetitive of what we've seen.  Given Schiff went to the WH today to see the classified whatever that Nunes was referring to, Schiff might have been a better get for tonite's show, because at least it would have been new info to discuss.  Rach has gotta be careful with this Russia stuff because she is starting to sound repetitive -- and I really hope she can avoid that.  But her description of how these WH boobs & Nunes have handled this, as just "a mess", was dead on.  Too bad the NYT piece on Jared's & Ivanka's financials came out too late for her to cover because I suspect she woulda been all over that.  Well, there's Monday's show . . . 

Edited by ScoobieDoobs
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, attica said:

I couldn't quite get a bead on how old Clinton Watts is (and some googling didn't unearth the info either), so I'm gonna go ahead and cast him with John Hawkes. David Strathairn is a better face match, but I think the wrong age by a bunch.

Ethan Hawke has the right look and is the right age.  I also could see in him both Brad Pitt (right age) and Jurassic Park-era-smart-can-be-sexy Jeff Goldblum.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

 Rach has gotta be careful with this Russia stuff because she is starting to sound repetitive -- and I really hope she can avoid that.

I'm ok if it's repetitive, because it's all so convoluted and messy, it's not easy to keep all these Russian connections straight, especially when there seem to be so many people in this administration who have participated in some sort of shady deals with the Russians over long periods of time.  Rachel is one of very few that are giving context and depth to this Russian information, information most others are ignoring in favor of parsing tweets.

I swear, it's so messy, I feel like I need a spreadsheet and flow-charts and recap each day.

Edited by izabella
  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post

So I wonder if Rachel goes home every night to MA--I'd always assumed she had some place in NY to live during the week and then would go home to western MA on the weekends.   That's quite a commute if she does.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Perhaps she went home early to avoid being stuck in NYC for the weekend. 

I just love how she says "Jared" whenever she talks about another job Trump has given the boy.  And I use the word boy because that's the impression her tone gives when she refers to him by his first name, like she is talking about a 12 year old.   

Wasn't there someone on recently who said they had created a website tracking all the Russian connections, allegations, players?  Or maybe I saw that on Lawrence O'Donnell's show.  Perhaps Rachel needs to invest in one of those large white boards like all the crime shows have, with pictures, and arrows, and notes.  Of course, with some new allegation every day, it would have to be huge. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size