Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

All Episodes Discussion: 2017 Season

AmandaPanda

By AmandaPanda
in The Rachel Maddow Show

  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

jenrising
jenrising

Posted Images

ahisma

ahisma

(edited)

Tonight's episode brought to you by the letter "C" for Corruption. Holy smokes: Nigeria. Inauguration. Venezuela. Price. And the good ol' Russian sanctions/Rosneft question. (I was half expecting to hear that some of the money in that Nigerian stash was bribes from Exxon. It's probably too early to know, but I bet it is.)

In other news, I hope Ms. McCord wasn't threatened out of her investigation job. Yikes.

Edited by ahisma
spelling matters
  • Love 3
Link to comment
attica

attica

When the photos from the Nigerian apartment started rolling, I was all, gosh, that cash looks American. I wonder why Nigeria made their cash look American! And then Rachel gets to the $43 million point. Wheee! So besides the obvious corruption of it all, I kinda wanna know what was supposed to happen to all that cash. Carried out in file cabinets? Mailed to friends and family? Laundered through a car wash in Albuquerque? Or was the intel chief just a paper hoarder? "I can't get rid of it! It'll come in handy some day!!!"

PS: Curiosity got me: Here is what actual Nigerian currency looks like.

Rachel's team made quite a bit of progress in the inauguration slush fund story in a day. Well done. And drip, drip, drip.

This was the first time I've seen Jon Ossoff interviewed. For somebody who looks likes he's fourteen, he seems careful, sober, and thoughtful. Or maybe he's just wary of sticking his very long neck out. 

  • Love 4
Link to comment
ahisma

ahisma

40 minutes ago, attica said:

This was the first time I've seen Jon Ossoff interviewed. For somebody who looks likes he's fourteen, he seems careful, sober, and thoughtful.

Same. I had just listened to 538's recent podcast. Clare Malone mentioned she went to college with him. She pointed out that he speaks slowly, and that people when they speak in a high-pressure situation (public, tv interview) get nervous and speed up. I appreciated him being on TRMS so I could hear for myself—he does sound very composed and thoughtful.

  • Love 2
Link to comment
clb1016

clb1016

On 4/21/2017 at 11:11 AM, ahisma said:

Same. I had just listened to 538's recent podcast. Clare Malone mentioned she went to college with him. She pointed out that he speaks slowly, and that people when they speak in a high-pressure situation (public, tv interview) get nervous and speed up. I appreciated him being on TRMS so I could hear for myself—he does sound very composed and thoughtful.

emphasis mine.  This is why a lot of people think Ivanka Trump is more reasonable and level-headed than her father.  She speaks calmly in a well-modulated tone of voice.  I'm not comparing Ossoff with Ivanka--politically or otherwise--only pointing out that sometimes the way people say things may distract from the substance of what they're saying (and don't even get me started on attractiveness, apparel, and other elements of appearance that influence the public's perception).

  • Love 6
Link to comment
Hanahope

Hanahope

(edited)

Great connecting the dots of trump's ILLEGAL campaign contribution to Floriday's AG, Bondi, so Florida wouldn't join the lawsuit against trump U, and now Bondi's chief of staff is up for a top job in trump's administration.

And love Rachel pointing out how all the Maralago members, who pay $250,000 apiece (at least) get to have full and personal access to trump, whereas us peons who don't have that kind of cash, have to hope our elected representatives present our views.  Same with anyone will millions available to buy one of his condos or other properties.  The corruption potential is staggering.

And yeah, we have continue living in this country once he's gone (hopefully in less than 4 years - one way or another) and there will be a lot of stink to clean up.

Edited by Hanahope
  • Love 8
Link to comment
navelgazer

navelgazer

(edited)

There are shows where I can't make myself sit through the extended 25-minute A block.  I'm not in the mood for trying to figure out where she's going before she gets a quarter-way there.  After that I'm out of patience or I'm just too fricking pissed/annoyed/enraged, take your pick.  

Tonight was not one of those shows.  That time she spent on Marine Le Pen was worth its weight in oxygen.  I had no idea M. Le Pen was so experienced, well-put-together, looks competent, capable, matter-of-fact, no-nonsense "I'll suffer no fools" and that we should be very afraid of her.  Her opponent has a small sex scandal to exploit -- he married his once-married teacher who is 25 years his senior for example.  It's probably tame by French standards, but it could cause damage if handled by the right person using the right talking points.  

I'm afraid.  I remember the last time we underestimated an extreme, volatile, myopic, aggressive, ignorant carnival barker and he got elected president.  Not saying Le Pen is those specific horrible attributes, but hers are just a different kind of horrible.  The West can't afford to make the same mistake twice.  

Edited by navelgazer
  • Love 6
Link to comment
Hanahope

Hanahope

I still don't understand why Comey was afraid that maybe they'd find something in Clinton's emails  on Weiner's computer (despite a huge amount of evidence indicating there was absolutely nothing whatsoever) and get in trouble after the election if they didn't announce it a few days before the election (which he knew was a huge issue that had been pounded upon by the GoP), but seemed to have no problem whatsoever in hiding the fact that the FBI was investigating trump's connection to Putin that was directly trying to influence our election (which did have a very real effect on our election).  Oh because Comey was so convinced clinton was going to win?  Gee, I'm so glad we run our country by Comey's "feelings".  Maybe Comey isn't cut out for an "intelligence" position.

  • Love 11
Link to comment
attica

attica

My sense is that Comey understood that keeping the Clinton investigation under wraps would mean he'd be spending all of his 2017 time (assuming Clinton won, that is) in front of eleventyfrillion Benghazi-type hearings. Whereas a Trump investigation would just be an investigation, full stop, regardless of the winner. Which goes to demonstrate the fear of a republican tantrum runs deep in DC -- and nobody fears a Dem one. Even in the footage that Rachel showed with Nadler trying to get Comey to bite, he just...didn't.   

  • Love 4
Link to comment
attica

attica

Last night's toss to LOD was cute. Rachel is pine hoarder!  

Tonight's interview with Cory Booker reminded me of a mention he got on Go Fug Yourself for the Time 100 gala: to wit, he has Resting Jolly Face. In full flower here!

  • Love 5
Link to comment
ScoobieDoobs

ScoobieDoobs

Rach started out once again with what looked like a history lecture & honestly, I was tired from work & just was not in the mood for that shit.  So I was about to turn her off quick, but then to my glad surprise she showed the pic from the lead article in the NY Times -- about the Jared connection to a very rich & corrupt family.  Man, I read that long convoluted article twice & I still couldn't understand WTF it was about.  Thanks so much, Rach for simplifying & translating it!

And yeah, thanks also, Rach, for showing up Chaffetz for the ridiculous joke he is.  Not hard to do, but well done.

  • Love 5
Link to comment
Galloway Cave

Galloway Cave

I kind of like that she starts out with ".....In 1928, there was this guy (family/business/event), and....." I just settle in and grab the popcorn, because I know it's going to come around to a really juicy bit that puts yet ANOTHER nail in the coffin (if we ever get a chance to bury the bastard). I don't mind the lectures; with so.damn.much coming out every day hour about this administration, sometimes it's nice to have someone explain it to me, instead of reading it several times online.

  • Love 24
Link to comment
car54

car54

I love when Rachel gets going and you can hear the crew in the studio laughing when she goes off on something that's really ridiculous.   Last night I think she was ad-libbing a little because you could hear them several times.

  • Love 4
Link to comment
attica

attica

I was cringing when Rachel broke her own rule: don't report on what he says, report on what he does. Spouting off about (maybe?) going to war with North Korea is typical of his stream-of-consciousness bullshit. (At least I hope so.) I get the impulse to report on it, but please won't someone resist? He'll back off in a day!

  • Love 2
Link to comment
Kitty Redstone

Kitty Redstone

I loved her "turn to stone" segment.  Seriously, reporters should just start peppering anyone and everyone in this corrupt administration with daily questions about Flynn and Russia. 

Chaffetz is a hypocrite and a coward.  He should be deeply ashamed of himself.

  • Love 5
Link to comment
Hanahope

Hanahope

(edited)
On 4/27/2017 at 3:54 AM, ScoobieDoobs said:

Rach started out once again with what looked like a history lecture & honestly, I was tired from work & just was not in the mood for that shit.  So I was about to turn her off quick, but then to my glad surprise she showed the pic from the lead article in the NY Times -- about the Jared connection to a very rich & corrupt family.  Man, I read that long convoluted article twice & I still couldn't understand WTF it was about.  Thanks so much, Rach for simplifying & translating it!

That was a great story.  Explaining the whole  money laundering scheme and its ties to the iron drilling company that paid bribes for contracts, and the one guy on trial for it right now in NY, to how that iron drilling company is owned by the same family that backs Jared Kushner's real estate deals, and how that's potentially illegal because if the iron drilling company commits crime, you can't do even "legal" business with them because of the potential for money laundering, just like trump's deal in Baku.  But that of course, the justice dept. run by a trump appointee, would never prosecute Kushner.

Oh and I loved the information about how the Yes California succession propoganda is being run by a Russian.  Of course it is.  Putin wants to sow chaos in the US whereever he can.

Edited by Hanahope
  • Love 7
Link to comment
Kitty Redstone

Kitty Redstone

3 hours ago, Hanahope said:

But that of course, the justice dept. run by a trump appointee, would never prosecute Kushner.

No, and even if they did Donald would just pardon him if convicted.  However, depending on the statute of limitations, the next administration could  prosecute. 

  • Love 2
Link to comment
meowmommy

meowmommy

53 minutes ago, Kitty Redstone said:

No, and even if they did Donald would just pardon him if convicted.  However, depending on the statute of limitations, the next administration could  prosecute. 

Gerald Ford gave Nixon a blanket pardon in advance of any charges, so no one could ever prosecute him.

  • Love 2
Link to comment
ScoobieDoobs

ScoobieDoobs

(edited)

Did Rach interview that Russian guy just so she can say she had him on her show before Putin makes him go poof?  Hey, I admire the guy.  It's rare to see someone so incredibly brave.  Given how Rach has shown a zillion times how anyone going against Putin ends up dead or jailed or poisoned or maimed in some horrible way, I was kinda expecting her to ask him if he was committing suicide by going against Putin.  He seemed well-aware of the risks he's taking & he seemed almost nonchalant about it.  Rach seemed taken aback by his calmness.  I was too.

Edited by ScoobieDoobs
  • Love 9
Link to comment
ScoobieDoobs

ScoobieDoobs

Weird, weird, just so weird?  Scuffy the Tugboat's evil twin?  You would be unqualified to search for zombies since you don't believe in them?  You're killing me, Rach!  

In the middle of Rach's show tonite, she pretty much said she's not gonna get involved in commenting on Trump's tweets every day & she's not gonna comment on his Andrew Jackson babble today because it's just a side-tracking distraction.  She said it's more important to concentrate on what's going on with his administration -- and that she'd rather focus on who these insanely unqualified appointments are & what they're gonna do.  And more to the point, how they're in a position to accomplish absolutely nothing because of their vast & deep incompetence & inexperience & total lack of qualifications that fit the positions they're being appointed for.

Rachel is consistent about this.  She has been saying for it quite some time -- Don't focus on what Trump and his people say, look at what they do.  Right on, Rach.  This is why I continue to watch.  Keep it up, Rach!

  • Love 13
Link to comment
Keepitmoving

Keepitmoving

(edited)
Quote

Rachel is consistent about this.  She has been saying for it quite some time -- Don't focus on what Trump and his people say, look at what they do.  Right on, Rach.  This is why I continue to watch.  Keep it up, Rach!

Yes, she has been very consistent and the ONLY reason she commented on that tweet a week ago about North Korea is that it sounded threatening and would put us/our troops in harms way. Anytime his dumb ass sends out a tweet that could lead us into WWIII she covers it and I'm fine with that. His typical steam of bullshit is not bullshit when it comes to dealing with his fellow lunatic in NK, someone who is crazier that him.

Edited by Keepitmoving
  • Love 8
Link to comment
M. Darcy

M. Darcy

(edited)

I just want to know what eating McDonalds hamburgers has to do with the gay agenda.  I've been eating them all my life but I'm not gay...but I have a lot of gay friends....oh, it all makes sense now.  I'm so glad Rachel is talking about these dangerous idiots who will be in the government.  

Edited by M. Darcy
  • Love 8
Link to comment
ScoobieDoobs

ScoobieDoobs

I really love it when she gets a super loud background belly laugh from her staff.  Last nite's background belly laugh came when she described one of the wacko appointments as having said she was against "homosexualists".  I was LMAO at Rach's quizical look into the cam, saying she never heard that term before & wasn't quite sure what it was exactly.  But she said whatever it is, she is whole-heartedly for it -- then out came that loud background belly laugh.  Fun stuff, Rach!

  • Love 7
Link to comment
Kitty Redstone

Kitty Redstone

13 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Rachel is consistent about this.  She has been saying for it quite some time -- Don't focus on what Trump and his people say, look at what they do. 

Yes, agreed!  This (along with reporting on the Putin connections) is what I most appreciate about her show.  It's easy to get sidetracked by the ridiculousness that comes out of his mouth and to laugh about how stupid and embarrassing it is.  But for all the incompetence and corruption, there are some very dangerous people in place who know exactly what they're doing.  Purposefully understaffing key agencies and filling positions with morons goes hand in hand with the constant attacks on democratic institutions. 

I'm glad she broke that rule the other day, though.  I'm afraid this guy is going to tweet us right into a war.

  • Love 6
Link to comment
Calvada

Calvada

Oh my goodness, the first segment tonight on the conference call with the budget guy and the reporters was hysterical.  Rachel was just gleeful reporting this story.  I've been on big conference calls like this, and there's always some moron who puts the call on hold so everyone else hears their godawful hold music (or worse, the people who put their phone on speaker but don't mute so you hear them clicking & clacking away on their keyboard) but I don't think this was hold music.  It was a too varied seection of music, and hold music usually doesn't get louder.  They were punked IMO. 

  • Love 7
Link to comment
ScoobieDoobs

ScoobieDoobs

I just can't help wishing there was something new & really solid to report on the Russia connections to Trump & his people.  It's mostly the same stuff Rach has repeated a zillion times & keeps repeating.  I'm not against her repeating this stuff.  I'm really not.  Just disappounted there isn't more to it.  And Rach sounding ultra dramatic about it isn't gonna make it more than it is right now -- which is def suspicious, but not much else.

Rach is making it sound like Sally Yates is gonna dramatically shake this story up.  Doubt it very much, Rach.  I get why Rach wants to rachet up the drama level on this story, but the reality is it just isn't there -- not yet at least.  Is it maddening & frustrating?  Hell yeah!  I'm really glad she's persistently staying all over it.  I just want her to be careful not to over-dramatize when it isn't warranted.  Gives Trump & his supporters more justification to dismiss it as fake.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
meowmommy

meowmommy

12 hours ago, Calvada said:

Oh my goodness, the first segment tonight on the conference call with the budget guy and the reporters was hysterical.  Rachel was just gleeful reporting this story.  I've been on big conference calls like this, and there's always some moron who puts the call on hold so everyone else hears their godawful hold music 

See, and I didn't care for this at all.  Everybody's been on a call like that, so why is it news?  There are so many other important points to make about the budget and everything else going on in the WH, and instead, Rachel is chortling like a third-grader who's put gum in someone's hair.  

Link to comment
attica

attica

12 hours ago, Calvada said:

It was a too varied seection of music, and hold music usually doesn't get louder.  They were punked IMO. 

See, my sense was that one participant put the classical music-on-hold on, and then, a couple other irritated participants put their own music up later, out of spite, which would explain the variance in volume and genre, maybe?

Link to comment
Galloway Cave

Galloway Cave

1 hour ago, meowmommy said:

Everybody's been on a call like that, so why is it news?

Because it was a press conference call with the White House. This wouldn't have happened with prior administrations. This shows how far down everything has sunk. It was sad and hilarious and completely unproductive all at the same time. The follow-up news conference that Spicy staged was even worse.

Spinning Wheels 101. I was laughing right along with Rach.

  • Love 7
Link to comment
clb1016

clb1016

21 minutes ago, Galloway Cave said:

Because it was a press conference call with the White House. This wouldn't have happened with prior administrations. This shows how far down everything has sunk. It was sad and hilarious and completely unproductive all at the same time. The follow-up news conference that Spicy staged was even worse.

Spinning Wheels 101. I was laughing right along with Rach.

Yup, yet one more display of the basic incompetence which this administration has raised to an art form.

  • Love 6
Link to comment
izabella

izabella

31 minutes ago, Galloway Cave said:

Because it was a press conference call with the White House. This wouldn't have happened with prior administrations. This shows how far down everything has sunk.

These WH people don't even know you can mute everyone's lines so only the speaker can be heard, and in order for a listener to speak, they can push a *6 or some combination of keys in order to unmute their line to ask a question.  This is conference call basics 101!

  • Love 6
Link to comment
Kitty Redstone

Kitty Redstone

I was not and am not the least bit interested in Ivanka Trump.  Yes, I get that some people believe that she and her husband are moderating forces on her father, but I think it's wishful thinking.  Also, I'm not convinced she's actually human.  She only conceives of emotions and moral values as things that can be turned into branding campaigns.

Now, what was funny was Rachel's reading of that half-wit thinking he disproved evolutionary theory by way of a rusty lawnmower.  I ask you, where in the fuck do these people come from????

  • Love 3
Link to comment
M. Darcy

M. Darcy

That story she did on Ivanka was scary.  And going by her tone and her questions, she seems to agree with me that its just wrong that she has so much power in this Administration.  

  • Love 13
Link to comment
attica

attica

(edited)

I liked the visit by Congresscritter Maloney. He seemed more pleased with himself than 'critters usually allow themselves to appear, but, yeah, I give him points for straight up trolling his 'neighbor'. Maloney's district flops from R to D and back on the reg; one-term-and-done is kind of the norm. (Remember John Hall? The singer from Orleans? Yeah, that was his district, or more or less; the lines got redrawn.) Maloney's managed to keep the seat once, so: progress!

Poor, poor Richard Engel! Having to spend a lovely spring weekend in Paris, of all the world-hotspot hellholes. What courage! :)

Maybe Rachel needs to multitask her last frantic Friday-night story with a cocktail moment. Have an intern do the mixing, put up a graphic with the recipe, Rachel can read her story and quaff at the same time. Lord knows I was drinking through her whole show...

Edited by attica
  • Love 7
Link to comment
clb1016

clb1016

6 hours ago, attica said:

Maybe Rachel needs to multitask her last frantic Friday-night story with a cocktail moment. Have an intern do the mixing, put up a graphic with the recipe, Rachel can read her story and quaff at the same time. Lord knows I was drinking through her whole show...

Given the past few months, we'll probably all soon be candidates for liver transplants.

  • Love 6
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...