Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

All Episodes Talk: TRMS 2018 Season

formerlyfreedom

By formerlyfreedom
in The Rachel Maddow Show

  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

TexasGal

TexasGal

3 hours ago, jjj said:

It took me a while to figure out what the heck this was.  Thanks for the alert(?!). For those who care to click, the link goes to a Wonkette piece on Rachel and a video of a lunatic who claims to be right-wing, but who makes the actual right-wing look like The Peace Corps.  According to him, Rachel has indicated that we will all show up this weekend and basically have a French Revolution at the White House, complete with guillotine. 

Well, since that whole July 4 Second Civil War didn't work out...

1 hour ago, Quilt Fairy said:

You forgot the black-clad commandoes rappelling down from helicopters.  I'm not sure who exactly is supplying them.

In all fairness Rachel has been rather breathless this week, just a hair's-breath away from "I don't give a fuck anymore"  - a line that Lawrence O'Donnell crossed some time ago.  She definitely wants somebody to do something.

Honestly after Justice Kennedy announced his resignation I didn't watch any MSNBC until this week because my ulcer can't take it.  How are we living in a country where it really seems legit that Russia was influencing cabinet nominations?

  • Love 8
  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

jjj
jjj

Oh, Rachel.  Our hearts are breaking with yours.  When Rachel Maddow bursts into tears on the show -- well, this is a very new and horrifying era. 

Hanahope
Hanahope

It was such a delight to have full and complete sentences and coherent thoughts.  I weep that Hillary is not our president.

Morrigan2575
Morrigan2575

God dammit! Rachel started crying and now I'm crying. ?

Posted Images

meowmommy

meowmommy

(edited)

A FB friend yelled, "Watch Rachel Maddow tonight!!"  I couldn't watch til this morning (I'm in the hospital), but now having seen it on the MSNBC app (thanks for those who gave advice above, BTW), I didn't see the excitement.  

I liked her calling out the rewriting of history--the parallels to Orwell's 1984 are chilling--but I just needed to see more outrage.  And the panel, with one of my favorite guests, Chuck Rosenberg, was mostly wasted.  Why use this panel to talk about Michael Cohen tapes?   That's something LOD salivates for.  I did appreciate the detail on why trying to extradite the ambassador is so scary.  Next time longer panel and more focused, please.   

Edited by meowmommy
  • Love 2
Galloway Cave

Galloway Cave

1 hour ago, meowmommy said:

Why use this panel to talk about Michael Cohen tapes?

I think the breaking news with the tapes completely derailed Rachel's plans last night. She had planned on using the panel to first talk about McFaul's situation, then roll into a discussion about other issues surrounding prosecuting The Russians, etc. When I heard her first describe her plan, I was a little bored by it, other than to hear about McFaul's day at the White House. The Tape discussion took up about 20 minutes, same with McFaul, so we were left with very little with the original discussion.

jjj

jjj

(edited)

Noooo, Rachel was cut off in the middle of a sentence about the new rule about "the NRA does not have to disclose its major donors."  Did anyone else experience this interruption?  NRA bot or Russian bot taking over my screen?  

ETA:  Noooo, it happened *again* at 34 minutes into the show, in the middle of a sentence about Diane Feinstein.  Car commercials both times. 

Edited by jjj
ScoobieDoobs

ScoobieDoobs

No mention of Pompeo's 3-hour buncha nothin' -- or did I miss it?

Man, I really look forward to Rach's Russian spy girl court transcript readings!  I burst out laughing when she mentioned the "true love" of spy girl & the 56 year old loser she "co-habitated with" -- and she clasped her hands together & held 'em to the side of her face.  Hee!

Yeah, I feel exactly as you do, Rach, about the Cohen tapes.  I've had enough & can't get past the ickiness of a lawyer doing this to a client.  It's gross -- and speaks volumes about Cohen & who he is.  But Trump had him as his personal lawyer for over 10 years, so doesn't that also speak volumes about who Trump is?

When Rach signed off with the quote from WaPo that there are at least 100 more Cohen tapes, which likely includes convos with Trump -- first thing I thought was Avenatti so called this.  Wonder if Rach has come around to Avenatti.

  • Love 6
sistermagpie

sistermagpie

46 minutes ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Yeah, I feel exactly as you do, Rach, about the Cohen tapes.  I've had enough & can't get past the ickiness of a lawyer doing this to a client.  It's gross -- and speaks volumes about Cohen & who he is.  But Trump had him as his personal lawyer for over 10 years, so doesn't that also speak volumes about who Trump is?

I thought it was a known thing that all Trump's lawyers taped conversations with him because he'd always lie afterwards about whatever was done or said. Maybe they were doing it openly, but it seems like anybody who works with Trump a lot would quickly see that as a necessary safety measure.

  • Love 12
ScoobieDoobs

ScoobieDoobs

1 hour ago, sistermagpie said:

I thought it was a known thing that all Trump's lawyers taped conversations with him because he'd always lie afterwards about whatever was done or said. Maybe they were doing it openly, but it seems like anybody who works with Trump a lot would quickly see that as a necessary safety measure.

Really??  I've heard much about Trump's past, but not that.  Clearly, Rach didn't know that, but I have noticed, as she admitted in her signoff, she's mostly been avoiding Cohen tape discussions.  Fine with me.  I'd much rather watch her updates on Russian spy girl & her "true love" -- AND those awesome court transcript readings.  Btw, anyone else think she plays a really good grumpy/cranky/crabby/crotchety judge so well?

  • Love 4
jjj

jjj

(edited)
18 minutes ago, Medicine Crow said:

If I can't have Rachel, Nicolle is a good replacement (along with my "brain massager"), Chuck Rosenberg!!

I completely agree -- I know there are plenty of Nicolle-disdainers among the MSNBC watchers, but she does a great job as interviewer on her show, and after some initial jitters tonight, she handled the show very well.  Was this the first time she has filled in for Rachel?  I know she has subbed for Brian Williams many times.  And after admitting she could not act out a transcript like Rachel (and who could?), she did a fine job of reading some pretty fascinating opening statements.  Nicolle has the ability not to need to be the center of attention, so lets news and interviewees become the focus, while keeping everyone on topic and making me laugh when she is just astonished at some behavior over at team POTUS.  

And Rachel appears to be out for the week -- at least, she will not be here tomorrow.  Lawrence O'Donnell asked if he could look forward to seeing Nicolle at 9 PM on Wednesday, and she said "it won't be me," with Lawrence replying, "I guess I'll just be surprised."  And I liked that she acknowledged the irony of her filling in for Rachel when she said to Lawrence, "Gee, I used to be the resident Republican here, now look at me!"  (I like that she said "resident" instead of "token".)  

2 minutes ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

I was totally baffled not to see Rach there.  She's waited for what feels like decades for the Manafort trial to start -- and then when it finally starts, Rach decides to go fishin'?  Er, huh????  I like Nicole Wallace so I'm OK with her as a replacement.

Edited by jjj
  • Love 1
ScoobieDoobs

ScoobieDoobs

(edited)

My only beef with Nicole is that she has a real tendency to interrupt her guests -- to the point of being pretty annoying.  She certainly never does it to the level of ridiculousness that Chris Interrupter Matthews does,  But tonite, she didn't do any interrupting at all.  And a show with Joyce Vance, Barbra McQuade & the eloquent Steve Schmidt?  OK with me. 

Still, I really woulda liked to have seen Rach report on the 21 thou watch & the 15 thou ostrich jacket.  When I hear this stuff, first thing I think of is -- didn't he spend anything on his wife for jewelry & clothes?  What a shithead.  Surprised Nicole didn't make that observation.  At least Melania gets clothes & jewelry.

Edited by ScoobieDoobs
  • Love 3
jjj

jjj

That was such an interesting episode, I had to watch it again to capture a few moments that were striking:

Chuck Rosenberg making the point that "collusion" = "conspiracy," which is the actual term in the criminal code.  

I think I have heard Rosenberg say, probably on Nicolle's show, that to claim "collusion" is not a crime because it is not in the statute is ridiculous.  He (on another show) made the comparison to the term "bank heist", which is not in the criminal code.  "A bank heist is not a crime because it is not in the criminal code!"  No, Rosenberg pointed out, but "bank robbery" is.

Jeremy Bash pointed out that WE DO NOT KNOW if the Trump interpreter was in the room the entire time.  It would be so important to know if he decided to rely just on the TRUSTWORTHY Russian interpreter for the most sensitive discussion points.  

I really enjoyed the Steve Schmidt segments.  I know posters here despise him, but he is a good interview.  

  • Love 8
Apprentice79

Apprentice79

7 hours ago, jjj said:

That was such an interesting episode, I had to watch it again to capture a few moments that were striking:

Chuck Rosenberg making the point that "collusion" = "conspiracy," which is the actual term in the criminal code.  

I think I have heard Rosenberg say, probably on Nicolle's show, that to claim "collusion" is not a crime because it is not in the statute is ridiculous.  He (on another show) made the comparison to the term "bank heist", which is not in the criminal code.  "A bank heist is not a crime because it is not in the criminal code!"  No, Rosenberg pointed out, but "bank robbery" is.

Jeremy Bash pointed out that WE DO NOT KNOW if the Trump interpreter was in the room the entire time.  It would be so important to know if he decided to rely just on the TRUSTWORTHY Russian interpreter for the most sensitive discussion points.  

I really enjoyed the Steve Schmidt segments.  I know posters here despise him, but he is a good interview.  

I love Steve Schmidt, he is intelligent, wise, succinct and eloquent.

Why do posters on here dislike him? 

  • Love 8
M. Darcy

M. Darcy

Quote

was totally baffled not to see Rach there.  She's waited for what feels like decades for the Manafort trial to start -- and then when it finally starts, Rach decides to go fishin'?

I'm sure she is fishin' but a part of me thinks she in Alexandria attending the trial.  

Quote

Why do posters on here dislike him? 

I don't dislike him but a part of me will always blame him for the start of the path that led us here since he was part of the decision that had McCain pick Sarah Palin as his VP. To be fair, it really seems that he knows that and what has happened to his party breaks his heart (not that I'm happy his heart is broken - its that he admits what is going on with the Republicans).  

  • Love 3
Apprentice79

Apprentice79

(edited)
7 minutes ago, M. Darcy said:

I'm sure she is fishin' but a part of me thinks she in Alexandria attending the trial.  

I don't dislike him but a part of me will always blame him for the start of the path that led us here since he was part of the decision that had McCain pick Sarah Palin as his VP. To be fair, it really seems that he knows that and what has happened to his party breaks his heart (not that I'm happy his heart is broken - its that he admits what is going on with the Republicans).  

What we are seeing with Steve's party is the culmination of Nixon's southern strategy, the backlash to the voters' rights act, civil rights act, the repudiation of the far right, the election of Obama, dark money that influences legislation via our elected officials and Trump taking over the party. There are so many layers to the implosion of the Republican party.  

Edited by Apprentice79
  • Love 2
TexasGal

TexasGal

12 hours ago, Medicine Crow said:

If I can't have Rachel, Nicolle is a good replacement (along with my "brain massager"), Chuck Rosenberg!!

I like Nicolle, and nowadays get almost gleeful when she has her moments of total exasperation with Republicans, but to me she's not a good fit to sub for Rachel.  I mean, NO ONE can replace Rachel but their approaches feel so different to me that I didn't even make it through the opening segment.  I don't mind Joy or Ari as substitutes.

  • Love 3
kassygreene

kassygreene

Nicolle was probably the person who was available.  People take vacations, and to be fair to Rachel, the Manafort trial was supposed to start a week ago, and putting off a family vacation for work is bad work/life balance.  

Besides, it looks like if this judge has his way the whole thing might be done by this weekend, and very possibly by the following weekend.  The politically "juicy" trial is in September.

  • Love 2
Cajungirl64

Cajungirl64

9 hours ago, jjj said:

That was such an interesting episode, I had to watch it again to capture a few moments that were striking:

Chuck Rosenberg making the point that "collusion" = "conspiracy," which is the actual term in the criminal code.  

I think I have heard Rosenberg say, probably on Nicolle's show, that to claim "collusion" is not a crime because it is not in the statute is ridiculous.  He (on another show) made the comparison to the term "bank heist", which is not in the criminal code.  "A bank heist is not a crime because it is not in the criminal code!"  No, Rosenberg pointed out, but "bank robbery" is.

Jeremy Bash pointed out that WE DO NOT KNOW if the Trump interpreter was in the room the entire time.  It would be so important to know if he decided to rely just on the TRUSTWORTHY Russian interpreter for the most sensitive discussion points.  

I really enjoyed the Steve Schmidt segments.  I know posters here despise him, but he is a good interview.  

I don't despise Steve Schmidt (although I admit I used to). I feel that he has had a true epiphany. He may never believe in the Democratic platform, but the fact that he is willing to call out the cowards in his "former" party (and to do it so eloquently and BLUNTLY) truly rocks my world. I get very excited when I see he is a guest on any of the MSNBC shows. (Are y'all gonna make me give up my Lifelong Liberal Card???)?

  • Love 5
car54

car54

I have been looking forward to Rachel's take on the Manafort trial.

From the hand-off last night, it did not sound like she would be on--Lawrence asked if Nicolle would be back and she said no...and he said something like "then it will be a surprise tomorrow to see who hands off to me".

I don't dislike Nicolle--I watch her show, and I know it's just my take but I find it jarring to have 2 former Bush/McCain staffers on Rachel's show of all shows.   The thing about Nicolle and Schmidt--while I am glad they are speaking out--I never forget that as soon as they have a strong GOP candidate who isn't Trump they will revert back to who they were before.

Seems just wrong to me.    When Rachel is not on I think Ari is the best replacement host for her format.   He does the long form monologue pieces well.   Some other replacement hosts are more used to a lot of panel guests to talk to and Rachel's show structure is not for everyone.

  • Love 3
Quilt Fairy

Quilt Fairy

I was surprised to see Nicolle subbing for Rachel last night, and I think it might have been a last minute thing.  Ari mentioned during his regular time yesterday that he would also be on at 6pm and I inferred that 6pm PDT = 9pm EDT = Rachel's show.  Although I'd be fine if I never saw that bizarre tie he was wearing Monday night ever again. 

 

2 hours ago, kassygreene said:

People take vacations, and to be fair to Rachel, the Manafort trial was supposed to start a week ago, and putting off a family vacation for work is bad work/life balance.

I think Rachel would have had more time available for vacation if the 2016 election had gone as everyone expected.  Things probably would have been a good deal calmer (unless you were a Fox News analyst!).  I would rather she take a long weekend here and there than have her be out for almost a month with pneumonia like she was in January. 

  • Love 2
jjj

jjj

(edited)
26 minutes ago, Quilt Fairy said:

 Ari mentioned during his regular time yesterday that he would also be on at 6pm and I inferred that 6pm PDT = 9pm EDT = Rachel's show.  Although I'd be fine if I never saw that bizarre tie he was wearing Monday night ever again. 

THANK YOU!  I thought he must have lost a bet to wear that tie in public.  I didn't hear him say he would fill in for Rachel, but I easily could have missed it.  They tend to run replacement hosts for her over two or three days, so it is unusual to have three different guest hosts in three different days.  

Edited by jjj
  • Love 1
jjj

jjj

(edited)
22 minutes ago, Quilt Fairy said:

If you missed it, this is the tie:

 

He himself admits it is a bad tie choice -- I think he wore it on his first show -- he has always displayed better ties on TRMS!  But apparently, he was considering this tie for Monday's fill-in for Rachel!

Previous admissions that it is not a good tie! 

https://www.facebook.com/AriMelber/photos/a.164189486968459.46714.128545747199500/1421642274556501/?type=1&theater

https://twitter.com/AriMelber/status/871450769261821952

Edited by jjj
  • Love 1
alias1

alias1

I try to get with the guest hosts, but it doesn't matter who it is, they lose me after the first 10 minutes.  No one can replace Rachel's delivery on any topic.  And I like Ari on his own show.  Nicolle bothers me because she talks over her guests constantly (on her own show) like her interjection is way more important than the opinion of the person talking (and she actually has some really good guests).  She usually doesn't talk over Steve Schmidt, but last night he tried to correct her that he's a former Republican and she had to interject that he's a non- practicing Republican.    

Rachel deserves her time off but I can't wait for her to come back.  

  • Love 2
lovinbob

lovinbob

22 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

My only beef with Nicole is that she has a real tendency to interrupt her guests -- to the point of being pretty annoying.  She certainly never does it to the level of ridiculousness that Chris Interrupter Matthews does,  But tonite, she didn't do any interrupting at all.  And a show with Joyce Vance, Barbra McQuade & the eloquent Steve Schmidt?  OK with me. 

I've been noticing the interrupting a lot on Deadline Whitehouse. I think she is really growing into her role and growing in confidence, which I think is leading her to be much more directive in her questioning. It does get annoying, though.

10 hours ago, TexasGal said:

I like Nicolle, and nowadays get almost gleeful when she has her moments of total exasperation with Republicans, but to me she's not a good fit to sub for Rachel.  I mean, NO ONE can replace Rachel but their approaches feel so different to me that I didn't even make it through the opening segment.  I don't mind Joy or Ari as substitutes.

I think Nicolle would be the first to agree with you. I love that she didn't even attempt to do the Rachel role-playing--it's always awkward to me when guest hosts try to read copy clearly written for/by Rachel. But I think she admires Rachel tremendously and that they have become friends, which I appreciate.

I would love to watch a conversation between Nicolle, Rachel, Steve Schmidt and maybe Joy Reid. I'd like to hear them talk about their differences and their newly discovered common ground, and if anything has changed for any of them in terms of seeing the others' perspectives. And yeah, what it will look like if the likes of Marco Rubio or Rand Paul oppose Trump in 2020.

Sorry, I didn't mean to go off topic. Rachel is missed right now, that's for sure, but good for her.

  • Love 1
ScoobieDoobs

ScoobieDoobs

Not an Ari fan, but he was OK.  He does at least try to inject some humor.  He doesn't succeed much when he does it, but the effort is appreciated.  He did some transcript readings that were kinda meh.  BUT he chose the transcript parts I'm absolutely sure Rach would approve.  So even tho his readings were far from what Rach's woulda been, they were pretty funny. 

The cranky judge asking lawyers to control their facial expressions (eye rolls)?  Asking the prosecutor not to call the oligarch an oligarch?  And the judge saying (when the prosecutor was mentioning the fancy brands of suits Manafort bought) that if it's not sold at Men's Warehouse then he doesn't know it?  LMAO!  And I liked him showing the ostrich jacket.  Anderson Cooper said he thought it might have feathers.  I did too.

  • Love 3
ahisma

ahisma

22 hours ago, kassygreene said:

People take vacations, and to be fair to Rachel, the Manafort trial was supposed to start a week ago, and putting off a family vacation for work is bad work/life balance.  

I agree. But not only did she miss the start of the trial and these juicy transcript readings, there was a major heist! I'm glad Ari didn't try to cover Sweden's Crown Jewels being stolen, because that's an exclusive Rachel specialty. 

  • Love 1
meowmommy

meowmommy

I suppose they don't do it because they're afraid viewership will drop off, but it annoys the shit out of me that Rachel (and Chris and LOD) don't tell us they're going on vacation or going to take off a few days.  It's not like we won't find out anyway when we tune in and they're not there.  It just feels manipulative and worse, discourteous.

  • Love 5
FoundTime

FoundTime

9 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

I suppose they don't do it because they're afraid viewership will drop off, but it annoys the shit out of me that Rachel (and Chris and LOD) don't tell us they're going on vacation or going to take off a few days.  It's not like we won't find out anyway when we tune in and they're not there.  It just feels manipulative and worse, discourteous.

I could not agree more. I don't mind the guest hosts of late, but I'd like to be prepared. Sometimes Rachel being Rachel is the highlight of the day/the only thing that keeps me sane, and I'd just like to know ahead of time so I don't get all happy and excited (relatively speaking) only to have to...adjust my expectations.

  • Love 4
ScoobieDoobs

ScoobieDoobs

I understand that Rach needs her time off.  She ain't a robot!  But sheesh, MSNBC needs her.  Her ratings are good.  But it made my heart sink to hear Hannity's are so much higher.  Ugh.  

Someone needs to say she'll be back next week.  I mean, she's said herself a zillion times how the Manafort trial is taking place in the "rocket docket".  The trial could be over by next week.  Would she take another week off & miss the whole thing?  Aw, c'mon, Rach, come back!

  • Love 2
jjj

jjj

I am sure that all the anchors are prohibited from saying they will take a day or next week off -- but am in the pissed off crowd here, mainly because of expectations.  Of course they need time off -- I have no problem with that.  I have also noticed that Rachel used to promote the heck out of Richard Engel's specials on Friday evenings, but now, sometimes he just pops up with no advance notice from Rachel.   Or, MSNBC will run a promotion for a Richard Engel special "9 PM on Friday!", but Rachel will not mention that she will be off, so her viewers are kept a little in the dark (unless we are watching at other times of the day and see the promos!).  

And I really, really appreciate it when the anchor says "Rachel will be back tomorrow."  But they NEVER say she will be back "next week", because that would make us stop watching.  I thought Nicolle Wallace did one of the best recent jobs filling for Rachel, and would tune in just for her.  But Ari, not so much.  The guest hosts do promote their Maddow show guest spots on their own shows.  I can imagine the in-house rulebook on this illusion: "(1) let the Rachel fans think maybe Rachel will be back, and (2) let's encourage the viewers to hope by *not* mentioning she will be gone; *but* (3) let's have Katy's or Ari's fan club know in advance to attract their audience base, as long as (4) Rachel's fan club doesn't find out that Ari announced on his show that he is guest hosting on Rachel's show; and (5) someone make sure Ari has a more dignified evening tie".

2 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

I understand that Rach needs her time off.  She ain't a robot!  But sheesh, MSNBC needs her.  Her ratings are good.  But it made my heart sink to hear Hannity's are so much higher.  Ugh.  

Someone needs to say she'll be back next week.  I mean, she's said herself a zillion times how the Manafort trial is taking place in the "rocket docket".  The trial could be over by next week.  Would she take another week off & miss the whole thing?  Aw, c'mon, Rach, come back!

 

3 hours ago, meowmommy said:

I suppose they don't do it because they're afraid viewership will drop off, but it annoys the shit out of me that Rachel (and Chris and LOD) don't tell us they're going on vacation or going to take off a few days.  It's not like we won't find out anyway when we tune in and they're not there.  It just feels manipulative and worse, discourteous.

  • Love 2
ScoobieDoobs

ScoobieDoobs

Ari's back.  His delivery is like a drill in my head, but he's doing a serviceable job.  Still, I'm distracted by his really poorly fitting ugly jacket.  He looked like a little kid wearing his daddy's jacket.  Wth?

Dependably good guests (like Clint Watts) save him.  He should send Barbara McQuade a thank you muffin basket.  She was great, as usual.

  • Love 2
jjj

jjj

Just now, ScoobieDoobs said:

Ari's back.  His delivery is like a drill in my head, but he's doing a serviceable job.  Still, I'm distracted by his really poorly fitting ugly jacket.  He looked like a little kid wearing his daddy's jacket.  Wth?

Dependably good guests (like Clint Watts) save him.  He should send Barbara McQuade a thank you muffin basket.  She was great, as usual.

I thought I was being so shallow by being distracted by his ill-fitting jacket!  (But the tie is appropriate!)  I love Clint Watts, and had never seen that clip of him testifying to the House committee about Russian interference.  Wow, so on target.  (Jeff Goldblum [from about 20 years ago] really could play him in a film.  Or Clint could play Goldblum.)  

  • Love 1
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...