Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
saoirse

All Episodes Talk: TRMS 2018 Season

Recommended Posts

Rachel's back!  And, she was right - I was wearing my longjohns.  

It sucks she had to do it but I'm glad she covered the firing of the entire HIV/AIDS council.   Though, I didn't know it wasn't started until President Clinton.  Which considering he was the third President during the AIDS crisis....grr.  (which another reason for when people say that everyone loves Bush I, I'm always a loud "not me". )

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
47 minutes ago, M. Darcy said:

And, she was right - I was wearing my longjohns.  

I am SO glad to be west of the Rockies! High will be 75 here today. Stay safe, everyone in the cold!

I was actually your a little surprised Rachel pushed so hard on the AIDS council firings. It's not unusual for a new president to clear everyone out and replace them. It is unusual for it to happen almost a year in, and we should keep an eye that they do get replaced. Rachel could have leaned a little harder on that it's a wait-and-see. 

The lead story was excellent! I love that Rachel has been on top of the Grassly constituent asking for the transcripts since the start.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

It's not unusual for a new president to clear everyone out and replace them.

That's probably why she covered it - its been a year and he hasn't replaced anyone on the Council or said indicated that he will.   And, my guess is that he won't.  Which given his nominees, it might be a good thing. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, M. Darcy said:

Which given his nominees, it might be a good thing.

So many of his agencies are still being run by acting directors, so I am not holding my breath that he will replace the council. Hopefully she will keep this in the news like she did last night about the Fusion transcripts.

Share this post


Link to post

Her demurral during the LO'D handover: "I do not want the floor." Rachel speaks for us all. (I do disagree with her on Lawrence's beard, tho. I mean, the grey in it makes his blue eyes pop, but it's unkempt in an anchor, imo.)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

The handoff to Lawrence was quite good last night, mainly because she said, "I do not want the floor," then gave a little speech.  (It was about the Big Button, right?  I can't even remember, I was so tired, but holding on for the handoff.)   

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Terrific show on Wednesday, when the Book of Fire and Fury came out and was covered by all the shows.  But on the way home on NPR, I heard about the appointment of a Trump hand-picked the new US Attorney for Manhattan, and the rest of the way home I kept repeating "Berman, Berman, Berman" so I would not forget it.  And then I was delighted that Rachel bucked the trend of starting  the astonishing Fire and Fury book, and instead followed the stink of Trump's US Attorney appointments.

But she really mis-analyzed the situation, starting with the firing of *all* the US attorneys earlier in the year (and thereby gaining the fired Barbara McQuade as an MSNBC commentator on Rachel's show) -- even back then, Rachel said, "did they fire everyone to avoid attracting attention to some of these?"  Tonight was the answer, but she kept saying "they were fired without a plan," and "these last-minute appointments" of the replacements on the day before the temporary appointments would end after 300 days.  This was a well-designed plan:  get rid of the US attorneys with jurisdiction over Trump Tower events, and hide this by firing all the US attorneys.  This was a plan.  And the appointments today were not last-minute -- Berman had been discussed as interviewed by Trump back in the summer, and this is not "last-minute".  Any appointment like this is negotiated far in advance of the announcement.  They just waited until the last minute to make the announcement, not to make the decision.  I give Rachel all my respect for covering this at the top of her hour, but she needs to step back and see what really the plan was over the past year.  Some of his lawyers are just ridiculous regarding the Russia probe, but maybe the A-team is conducting its business just fine under the radar, making sure no charges will ever stick. 

Her coverage of all the other bizarre news today, Bannon's quotes and Ivanka's brick-like thickness -- all wonderful.  So glad Rachel is back this week. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

Well, given the timing, it does seem last minute.  Was it because of disorganization or was it deliberate?  I'm sure Rach will follow this up with a better explanation.  I like that she said the appointees may be well qualified, but trailed off on the one from Rudy's law firm.  

At this point, it's highly suspicious, but nothing out of line.  It's good tho that Rach is keeping an eagle eye on this stuff.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Well, given the timing, it does seem last minute.  Was it because of disorganization or was it deliberate?  I'm sure Rach will follow this up with a better explanation.  I like that she said the appointees may be well qualified, but trailed off on the one from Rudy's law firm.  

At this point, it's highly suspicious, but nothing out of line.  It's good tho that Rach is keeping an eagle eye on this stuff.

She did not make the distinction between a last-minute announcement versus a last-minute decision.  It appears very deliberate, but she was making it sound like the decision had been made yesterday.  And she has reported on this enough to know better.  

Edited by jjj
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

It appears very deliberate, but she was making it sound like the decision had been made yesterday.

 

Yeah, but at the end of the day this didn't rank anywhere on the number scale as a concern for me. It was the idenitity/background of the actual appointees, that's what mattered as far as I'm concerned. I don't care about her making a distinction between last minute decision and last minute announcement, not with this dipshit administration. If the implication is that she's trying to exaggerate or not be specific enough in an effort to hype things up as worse than they are then....LOL, I'm betting on she knows she doesn't have to do that, not for her loyal audience. There are enough facts, that come out every day, hell, every hour of every damn day, that proves it's much worse than the day before. It's utterly exhausting, totally draining.

Edited by Keepitmoving
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

The show tonight was good-- I wanted to  hear what she was saying and it felt important to focus on it. So this is not a complaint by any means. But: I always also wonder what the 6 things were that she was planning to talk about but scrapped due to "breaking news"-- it gives me this major "oh god, what else?" reaction, kind of a cross between FOMO and the kind of panic you feel when you might have left the stove on when you left the house.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, possibilities said:

The show tonight was good-- I wanted to  hear what she was saying and it felt important to focus on it. So this is not a complaint by any means. But: I always also wonder what the 6 things were that she was planning to talk about but scrapped due to "breaking news"-- it gives me this major "oh god, what else?" reaction, kind of a cross between FOMO and the kind of panic you feel when you might have left the stove on when you left the house.

I think we got the answer to that tonight.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Tonight, Rachel, recited, the names and titles, of all the people, that have left this administration and it has not even been a year yet.  It was hilarious.. I am laughing, but, it is really sad..

Edited by Apprentice79
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

In the opening segment, when she was talking about the "retreat without Sessions" at Camp David, and the implications for dismissing him and then getting Mueller dismissed -- I kept telling the screen:  "This is all connected to the timing of the new US Attorneys" -- now that Trump has more protection at the state level where he cannot pardon anyone and he himself might be indicted if the federal probe is dissolved.  So, I was relieved that she revisited the US Attorney appointments in a later segment in the program.  As I said two days ago, waiting until Day 299 of the 300-day timeline was not last-minute, but a strategic plan.  And at one point she showed the headlines about the unprecedented interviews with candidates Trump conducted in the summer (for the districts that might affect him and his company), although I don't think she talked about those headlines; they were just a graphic. 

Watergate is soon going to look like a documentary about a federal park compared to what is coming; I am glad she did not get too far ahead on this, but absolutely laid out the groundwork on tonight's show.  There is a lot in this episode she will be able to point to in the future as prophetic. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Wow, that breathless listing of all the departures was impressive.  And at least Rach mixed in some humor, along with a nightmarish (albeit realistic) portrayal of the Repub Congress efforts to protect Trump & flub the Russia investigation.  I wanted to scream & cry over this, but the stuff on The Blob at least gave me a much needed giggle.  I know, I know, Rach, if you work for Trump, run, don't walk, to the nearest exit, eh?

I had to watch the segment with the DOJ guy twice & I'm still kinda lost on the significance.  At least Gillibrand (and Rachel) are all over the appointees in Manhattan & Brooklyn.  I hope that makes some diff.

Edited by ScoobieDoobs
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

at least Rach mixed in some humor, along with a nightmarish (albeit realistic) portrayal of the Repub Congress efforts to protect Trump & flub the Russia investigation.  I wanted to scream & cry over this

I have had a horrible feeling at the end of her shows lately. Worse than anytime during this administration. Finding out the Repubs on the Congressional Committee were successful in getting the FBI to turn over classified info to them is horrifying to this retired LE officer. Then I remembered they will probably just blackline any info that relates to the open investigation (hopefully). I know Mueller will stand strong and will thoroughly investigate any interference in the election, as well as any illegal activity he finds. As a side note, I wonder why the MSM hasn't used that card when they have Trumpkins on their shows and said Trumpkins ramble on about Hillary. Rosenstein gave broad latitude in the investigation; if Mueller finds any wrongdoing by Hillary's campaign or Foundation during his investigation, he will file charges accordingly. There is no need to have the DOJ start new investigations.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

The Watergate podcast guy was interesting -- and seemed really sweet with his geeky shtick.  Rach clearly likes geeks.  In interviews, she always stresses she thinks of herself as an ultimate geek.  Funny, but I don't see her that way at all.  She looked like she saw the geeky Watergate podcast guy as a geeky kindred spirit.  I liked him.  Hope she has him back cuz he offers a much needed calming POV (to me anyway).

Glad she pointed out the lunacy that Repub Congress' only acknowledgement of Russian interference in our election is to ONLY go after Christopher Steele -- with her mentioning ALL the countless Russian-related sinister characters, which so many around Trump have had suspicious dealings with.  Thanks, Rach, for keep pointing this stuff out!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

In the midst of the shithole story, at least Rachel gave me a giggle by warning us all that she was about to swear.  But only once.  For context.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
48 minutes ago, TexasGal said:

In the midst of the shithole story, at least Rachel gave me a giggle by warning us all that she was about to swear.  But only once.  For context.

Yeah, that was the path Joy Reid took in the "All in with Chris Hayes" hour (she was substituting).  I am sure there was a major-league network discussion today about whether to say that word on the air.  And based on Rachel and Joy, it seems the decision was "the President said this, so say it once."  It is shocking to hear, even knowing what was going to be said. 

ETA:  My theory fell apart when Lawrence O'D said it three times. 

Edited by jjj
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

As depressing as the content of the A block was... it was kind of hopeful that Rachel pointed out Trump's racist excesses mean that he's sinking his administration's legal cases?

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

At first, I was kind of like, really, you're going to ding them for typos?  (And I'm a grammar maven who loathes typos.)  Snickering at typos, covfefe notwithstanding, is the kind of pedantic, partisan activity that gives 45-bashing a bad name.  But then Rachel was able to slide the typos into focus and make a cogent political point about the news of the day.  Which is why she's very, very good at what she does.

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, meowmommy said:

Snickering at typos, covfefe notwithstanding, is the kind of pedantic, partisan activity that gives 45-bashing a bad name. 

True. But it gives my pedantic, partisan heart something to live for. Please don't deprive me!

[singing] So, I lit a fire. Isn't it good, Normeegian wood? [/singing]

Edited by attica
  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, jjj said:

ETA:  My theory fell apart when Lawrence O'D said it three times. 

But Lawrence's show comes on later than the other 2 shows--so he may have had some leeway because school-aged kids should have been in bed by then. Of course, I may be thinking this way because once upon a time there was a ratings schedule where family-safe shows were shown early (7 pm; 8 pm) and then teen/adult fare could be shown at 9 pm; 10 pm--where swear words, sexual innuendo, violence were not allowed for the family-safe times but allowed for the later time periods.  I forget what it was called....it sucks to get old!

I've only been watching Rachel's show since the November election and am so glad I found out about her show! What a breath of fresh air to have someone who not only explains what's going on, but will also tie it in with historical background and connect the dots with current events. I love her style and her camaraderie with other show hosts, especially with Lawrence O'Donnell.

Edited by kimaken · Reason: Back on topic...
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, attica said:

True. But it gives my pedantic, partisan heart something to live for. Please don't deprive me!

Her point about spelling would have held up better if there had not been a big typo in the first word in one of the placards later in the show.  Not the MSNBC crawl, but her own segment.  "Reate" instead of "Create".  Still, I agree that the WH should get it right.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I always consider it a minor miracle if I can compose a simple post without any typos, and I actually do proofread before I hit send.  Still, there's always at least one damn typo.  So, I was sort of on the "oh, let's not get all snarky about an obvious typo when there are  so many real issues" train.  But how do you get NorMay as a typo for Norway?   It's not like M and W are next to each other on a key board.  It really makes me think Trump really thinks Normay is the real name of the country, and that is mockable.   Especially since we now consider that to be a white enough country to accept immigrants from.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, kimaken said:

But Lawrence's show comes on later than the other 2 shows--so he may have had some leeway because school-aged kids should have been in bed by then. Of course, I may be thinking this way because once upon a time there was a ratings schedule where family-safe shows were shown early (7 pm; 8 pm) and then teen/adult fare could be shown at 9 pm; 10 pm--where swear words, sexual innuendo, violence were not allowed for the family-safe times but allowed for the later time periods.  I forget what it was called....it sucks to get old!

I've only been watching Rachel's show since the November election and am so glad I found out about her show! What a breath of fresh air to have someone who not only explains what's going on, but will also tie it in with historical background and connect the dots with current events. I love her style and her camaraderie with other show hosts, especially with Lawrence O'Donnell.

I guess you're referring to this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watershed_(broadcasting)

Quote

In broadcasting, the watershed or safe harbour is one or more dayparts during which it is appropriate to broadcast programming aimed towards mature or adult audiences. 

The term "watershed" is not used in this context in the United States. In the U.S., the "safe harbor" for adult programming begins at 10:00 p.m. and ends at 6:00 a.m. the next day. This "safe harbor" was established by the U.S. Supreme Court case Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation. That case distinguished "obscene" material (which is always banned by U.S. law) from the broader category of "indecent" material (which may be broadcast during safe harbor). The FCC's jurisdiction only applies to terrestrial television, hence cable channels may be more lenient in their content depending on their target audience. Premium channels, such as HBO and Showtime or adult channels like Playboy TV and Spice, take considerably more leeway in their programming.

Edited by sum

Share this post


Link to post

Just a reminder - conversation is about the show and what happens on the show. Updates or new news on show topics are not about the show, and posts will be removed. Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post

This conference call transcript—and Rachel’s glee in recounting it—is uh-mazing! “‘Can’t even run a bleeping phone call’ except he didn’t say bleeping.” ? Then the Rick Roll into commercial? ?

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post

Boy, Rach really didn't want to talk about the porn star, did she? Makes me wonder if she was told she had to do a short segment on the news, like it or not. Loved that she literally crawled under the table after it was all done.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

Too much mawkish sentimentality from both Rachel and Senator Harris re: DACA and the DREAMERs.  Yes, it's all horrifying, but I started to feel goopy just listening to them try to out-earnest each other.   That being said, I like Senator Harris and I would love to fall in love with her and her chances as a candidate in 2020, but I usually don't like to fall for a presidential candidate until the last possible moment, so it's going to be a uber-long courtship.  I just hope Rachel keeps her own fondness for any particular candidate in check, unlike what Rachel did in 2016 with her worship at the altar of HRC. 

I transcribed conference calls for 12 years and I have to say that most of the time the stuff Rachel read out would not have been typed.  Usually the transcript starts when the operator introduces things, date, time, title, call moderator, etc.  And a lot of the calls I did had that sort of chaotic beginning before things settled down and everybody got down to business.  Rachel even said "we got the Mandarin translated," which is over and above the usual practice.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, navelgazer said:

I transcribed conference calls for 12 years and I have to say that most of the time the stuff Rachel read out would not have been typed.  Usually the transcript starts when the operator introduces things, date, time, title, call moderator, etc.

Perhaps they used voice recognition software and not a human transcriptionist?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I doubt that was the official transcript, if there was one (this WH certainly will edit even the P).  It was my impression that the actual purpose of the conference call may never have been reached, since the call's organizers (i.e., the WH) weren't, shall we say, skilled.  But if all that pre-call audio was available (apparently at least one reporter recorded it), then the network transcribing it on its own (with translations!) is pure gold.  It was also hilarious.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post

I loved hearing Rachel repeat that phone transcript, hilarious.

great interview with Senator Harris.  She seems very smart and dedicated.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, Hanahope said:

I loved hearing Rachel repeat that phone transcript, hilarious.

great interview with Senator Harris.  She seems very smart and dedicated.  

She was articulate & just great.  Rach has her regulars in Congress who appear on her show.  I hope she becomes one too.

While I love "Never Gonna Give You Up", I'm hoping to never hear it again on your show, Rach.  The transcript thing was good, but you ended at just the right moment cuz I was on the verge of tuning out.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Rachel really did seem taken with Kamala Harris.  I'm not there yet.  Plus I hate their stock answers when they get asked if they're running in 2020.  "No, I'm focused on what I'm doing right now."  How is that answer any different than everyone else who's been asked that question?  Not sure why Rachel was so pleased with that.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, SierraMist said:

Not sure why Rachel was so pleased with that.

Rachel often says she doesn't like talking about presidential elections more than two years out. In this interview, she also strongly implied Kamala Harris is working on some really important things right now that need a lot of focus, and Rachel wouldn't want to hear she's spending energy thinking about 2020.. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Oh wow, all that info about money laundering scandal involving Nursultan Nazarbayev, the dictator of Kazakhstan, and Rump real estate holdings.  And he's coming to the White House!  

According to guest #1, Thomas Frank of Buzzfeed, 1/5 of all Rump's real estate deals were cash transactions to shell companies. There's also a lawsuit out there that basically claims the Rump Soho condo project is "a monument to money laundering".

Love the reporting, keep following the money.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

White House gag's Bannon from speaking to the House Intelligence Committee?  I liked Rachel asking why that would happen, something to hide?  Good to hear that the Mueller subpoena might be able to blow through that.  

Edited by Hanahope
  • Like 2

Share this post


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