Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
saoirse

All Episodes Talk: TRMS 2018 Season

Recommended Posts

Does anyone know if Rachel actually cleans and eats the trout she catches or does she just do catch and release?  She must enjoy fishing an awful lot if she bought her own canoe.  (It was a canoe, right?) 

I love sauteed trout. 

Share this post


Link to post

5 minutes ago, Quilt Fairy said:

Does anyone know if Rachel actually cleans and eats the trout she catches or does she just do catch and release?  She must enjoy fishing an awful lot if she bought her own canoe.  (It was a canoe, right?) 

It must be, for the tackle; I actually thought it was a kayak, but that does not make sense for fishing.

I was grumbling because instead of repeating Rachel's show, they extended Brian Williams for another hour to cover this one little Ohio special election.  But it could have been worse -- now they have unleashed Steve Kornacki live for a hour instead of the repeat of Lawrence O'Donnell's show.  This is really overkill.  I have to go find the Rachel podcast to catch a few things I missed or see if this is on the full-show app yet.   

What was the Army reference?  I missed that! 

3 hours ago, suomi said:

LMAO at calling The Army "for a briefing for my new job." Army: "Whozis?"

Edited by jjj

Share this post


Link to post

It was the banker in Chicago calling the Pentagon for briefing material since he was sooooo sure he was going to be named Secretary of the Army.

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Sharpie66 said:

It was the banker in Chicago calling the Pentagon for briefing material since he was sooooo sure he was going to be named Secretary of the Army.

Oh, right!  I heard that topic,  missed the specifics.  Planned to listen more closely on the repeat.  (grrrrrr, but now the whole show is on the app, so I'll pretend it is 9:00 again)  

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

I’ve watched enough Law & Order to know that a PITA judge can really mess up a prosecutor’s case if he/she wants to.

I know!  I just rewatched an episode where that happened (the one where the judge was sexually harassing Jamie Ross).   

Rachel seemed a little freaked out about how much people missed her on vacation.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Well, Rach was still being jokey about the asshole judge, but she had Barbara McQuade point out the serious possible consequences from his biased asshole antics.  I'm less inclined to find his cranky/nasty shit so funny anymore.  

Yeah. I'd heard before that in addition to his rocket docket he HATES to have his cases appealed, so he keeps things really tight, as Barbara also intimated. So the things he was doing at first, I could see through the lens of him making sure the defense wouldn't have grounds to appeal. (Like, "The prosecutors were making faces and rolling their eyes in a way that prejudiced the jury.")

But if he is continuously over-the-top berating the prosecutors ("You're crying." Really?!) and running down their evidence, he's the one tainting the jury, and the prosecutors don't get another chance. 

I'm glad they mostly have a paper case, and they'll be able to sum everything together in a way that makes it clear this guy was making and spending piles of money he wasn't reporting to the IRS.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Was it clear whether the jury was present for the "you're crying" exchange?   This judge is a bit out of control.  Also, what was Barbara McQuade's take on why the prosecutors objected to the inclusion of additional Trump information that resulted in the sealed portion of the transcript?  I would guess that it was because it was related to something that is the subject of pending, yet unannounced charges against someone, but would love to have her confirm that.

I was distracted by some tummy troubles last night so kept missing good stuff.  Have to watch my dvr of it tonight.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, TexasGal said:

Was it clear whether the jury was present for the "you're crying" exchange? 

The jury was not present for that. I thought they weren't present for the other exchange but Barbara made it sound like they were. Or if they aren't sequestered, they could possibly hear it outside of the court (even though they aren't supposed to consider anything heard outside the court in deliberations). I'm a little confused by it all. Barbara's take on the sealed discussion was the defense had asked too broad of a question to the witness about the Trump Campaign and they are not there to prosecute the campaign, only Manafort's tax and financial crimes that he was indicted for. The discussion was sealed because it was had information about an on-going investigation that should not be revealed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Barbara McQuade said the judge has made some blistering comments in front of the jury.  One was demeaning Gates & might have influenced how the jury sees him.  It's disturbing to see he's so clearly biased against the prosecution.  He's not just hurrying everything along anymore.  That exchange with the prosecutor about whether or not he was crying was nasty & bullying.  I was laughing at his antics last week.  Not so much now.

Anyhoo, thanks for coming back, Rach and putting your spotlight on this judge.  Notice that Rach said she was told the trial would be no big deal & just a paper trial?  She probably thought it was a good time to take a vacay.  Uh, no, Rach.  No long vacays till November -- please?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
54 minutes ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

 Notice that Rach said she was told the trial would be no big deal & just a paper trial?  She probably thought it was a good time to take a vacay.  Uh, no, Rach.  No long vacays till November -- please?

That was ridiculous for her to say, and a false version of history.  She was supposed to be in the anchor chair for the first week of the trial, which got delayed a week.  We are not that gullible.  And she has been hyping this for months.

Edited by jjj
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, M. Darcy said:

Rachel seemed a little freaked out about how much people missed her on vacation.

LOD:  "I have a message from your fans--please don't ever take a vacation again."

Rachel:  "That's both kind and hostile."

Felt like the lead-up to Misery!

12 hours ago, jjj said:

But it could have been worse -- now they have unleashed Steve Kornacki live for a hour instead of the repeat of Lawrence O'Donnell's show.

I tried to watch LOD, just FFing past the special election coverage, and 35 minutes of FF convinced me there was no hope, so I just deleted the whole show.  At least Rachel only had it in the middle and it was a quick FF.  When it's midterms night, I'll understand the wall-to-wall coverage, but not this.  And may have to watch CNN instead of MSNBC, because John King has the same maps but doesn't go manic on them.  Why exactly do they like Steve Kornacki?

50 minutes ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Barbara McQuade said the judge has made some blistering comments in front of the jury.  One was demeaning Gates & might have influenced how the jury sees him.  It's disturbing to see he's so clearly biased against the prosecution.

Never having sat on a jury, I can't tell if a judge being obviously biased would lead the jury to accept his bias, because of the gravitas of his position, or offend them, since they know in principle he's supposed to be impartial.

Share this post


Link to post

Dear Rachel, fans were not freaked out because you took a vacation.  You deserve several great vacations.  Fans did freak out because you disappeared at the end of one week, were gone the next week, and gone the start of the third week, and NO ONE would say anything about when you would be back until the last day.  Just tell viewers you will be taking a week or two off, and everyone will calm down.  It's like that stream of videos of people holding a blanket in front of their dog then disappearing.  Some dogs are indifferent; some dogs immediately go bonkers.  You cultivate a fan base that likes information and can handle the truth. (Yes, we CAN handle the truth!)   

2 hours ago, meowmommy said:

LOD:  "I have a message from your fans--please don't ever take a vacation again."

Rachel:  "That's both kind and hostile." Felt like the lead-up to Misery!

 

6 hours ago, M. Darcy said:

Rachel seemed a little freaked out about how much people missed her on vacation.  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

I suspect (and I have nothing concrete on which to base this, so take it for what it's worth) that the choice to keep hidden the length of any anchor's time off is made by the suits. My guess is that if Rachel tells us "I'm off next week, byeeeee!" that many viewers will simply fail to tune in, which will be bad for ratings. And ratings count every day (even though they probably shouldn't, but that's neither here nor there). So we get the tease: "Rachel has the night off." 

Unspoken is "trout, on the other hand, are on high alert."

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, attica said:

I suspect (and I have nothing concrete on which to base this, so take it for what it's worth) that the choice to keep hidden the length of any anchor's time off is made by the suits. My guess is that if Rachel tells us "I'm off next week, byeeeee!" that many viewers will simply fail to tune in, which will be bad for ratings. And ratings count every day (even though they probably shouldn't, but that's neither here nor there). So we get the tease: "Rachel has the night off." 

Unspoken is "trout, on the other hand, are on high alert."

Oh, I completely agree!  I know it is not her choice, but she is the one left holding the bag on the air (trout-filled bag?)  and dealing with Barbara McQuade's courtroom full of fans and Lawrence's pleas from fans.  And I totally believe that both of them got greetings for Rachel.  

Trout on high alert, hee!    

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, meowmommy said:

And may have to watch CNN instead of MSNBC, because John King has the same maps but doesn't go manic on them.  

I know! I actually flipped over to CNN very late last night, and there was John King at their magic board, being very calm. Much better. I remember dipping into CNN one election night recently and they have amazingly granular maps. (Don't worry, MSNBC, I still love you best.)

Also agree with jjj, just let us know when Rachel will be gone and for how long. We'll muddle through and rejoice at her return.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I'm really glad Rachel enjoyed her vacation, but something about the way she talked about it made me wonder. I don't think she's going to keep her show for years and years. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if she calls it quits after the 2020 election. She makes really good money, and could certainly retire from the daily grind of a cable network tv show. And I think that's what it is for her: a grind.

I would hope she doesn't retire completely and there would be a lot of interest in her if she decided to change jobs. But I'm just not seeing her sticking around for her MSNBC show for a long period of time. Hope I'm wrong, but I'm mentally preparing myself. I still miss Keith Olbermann and he's been gone for years.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Wow, Rachel covered the election story I thought the network should have been covering last night; but I have several different angles on the story than she presented.  I could not figure out why they were spending so many hours on that Ohio special election, when anyone paying attention in Washington State knew that the No. 4 member of Congress, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, was likely to be in a very close race with a very strong Democratic state legislator.  And that is what happened.  Rachel mentioned this at the beginning of her story, but it is a very big deal for Congress, much more than newcomers in a special election.  (I get why they covered the Ohio race, but this other one was just as newsworthy.  Big difference? The WA returns did not come in until 11:00 PM ET.  So, less newsworthy in the East Coast market.  But still reflecting the shift to Blue, for a long-time incumbent.)  

But I have a different take on Rachel's analysis of the Nunes comments, and I know people staffing that campaign.  It was a fundraiser.  They brought in Nunes because McMorris Rodgers was in such deep trouble, and those comments of Nunes were intended to open up the checkbooks for more donations -- yes, we need to pay attention to the ongoing push to impeach Rosenstein ("rosenSTEEN" said one of the audience members, and I groaned).  But the Senate has made it clear they are not interested, and most of the House is also not interested -- and it is not because the Supreme Court confirmation has to come first.  But this is the story they have to tell when they fundraise, because saying "this ain't gonna happen" is not going to get the donations.  Rachel should have brought in someone to comment on the significance of remarks made in a fundraiser, and whether there is a secret impeachment push in the wings from members beyond the Nunes fringe.

All that said, it was very interesting to hear the audio clips!

ETA:  Oh, cool, Lawrence O'Donnell just agreed with me about the fundraiser intent!   "They just lie about what they are doing when they are at fundraisers."

Edited by jjj
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

Er, was that a scoop Rach spent her first half-hour on?  Doesn't everyone already know well that Nunes is a scummy, underhanded, sleazy scuzzball loser.  Doesn't seem like news to me, but I hope it helps take him down.

I liked her interview with that former prosecutor who has gone before the cranky judge.  Great insight from him on the judge & the trial.  Good interview & good pick for an interview, Rach.

Edited by ScoobieDoobs
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

I know this is really superficial and am admitting that before sharing something that bothers me at me times. Nights like tonight when Rachel's makeup around her eye area looks lighter then the rest of her face distracts me from what she's saying at times because I keep wondering why it happens so often.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, SpiritSong said:

But I'm just not seeing her sticking around for her MSNBC show for a long period of time.

She's already had her show for 10 years. 

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, SpiritSong said:

But I'm just not seeing her sticking around for her MSNBC show for a long period of time. Hope I'm wrong, but I'm mentally preparing myself. I still miss Keith Olbermann and he's been gone for years.

I could see Keith Olbermann as her permanent guest host and then taking over for good, but I'm pretty sure he not only burned all his bridges at MSNBC, but scattered the ashes at sea.

3 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

I liked her interview with that former prosecutor who has gone before the cranky judge.  Great insight from him on the judge & the trial.  Good interview & good pick for an interview, Rach.

I liked him, too.  He seemed thrilled to be there.  Wonder why we haven't seen him before (or maybe we have and I just don't remember).  I kept staring at his tie, though!  But if you don't count the two Watergate veterans, Jill and Nick, who are amazing, Chuck Rosenberg is still my favorite guest lawyer.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Jaded said:

I know this is really superficial and am admitting that before sharing something that bothers me at me times. Nights like tonight when Rachel's makeup around her eye area looks lighter then the rest of her face distracts me from what she's saying at times because I keep wondering why it happens so often.  

Actually, sometimes I've noticed lately, when she blinks a lot, her makeup people must be going nuts with mascara on her cuz it looks quite heavy.  It can be a bit distracting, but I usually just forget about it.  To me, Ari's unshaved mug & ugly crinkly jacket last week was much more distracting. 

But I don't really care that much about any of this stuff.  I'm just glad Rach is back cuz all of her subs last week constantly played those damn fucking Trump clips that I can't stomach.  How many Trump clips have we seen since Rach has been back?  Nada, zip, nil, zero.  Thanks for that, Rach & glad to have ya back!

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

her makeup people must be going nuts with mascara on her cuz it looks quite heavy. 

Not mascara. False lashes. (well maybe both, but mostly FLs.)

I know it's hopelessly naive of me, but I long for the days of embattled pols to stick to the line "I look forward to cooperating with a full investigation, which I'm confident will find no wrongdoing." 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

I'm just glad Rach is back cuz all of her subs last week constantly played those damn fucking Trump clips that I can't stomach.  How many Trump clips have we seen since Rach has been back?  Nada, zip, nil, zero

Amen!!!!!!

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

On ‎8‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 9:49 AM, ScoobieDoobs said:

Barbara McQuade said the judge has made some blistering comments in front of the jury.  One was demeaning Gates & might have influenced how the jury sees him.  It's disturbing to see he's so clearly biased against the prosecution.  He's not just hurrying everything along anymore.  That exchange with the prosecutor about whether or not he was crying was nasty & bullying.  

And now the judge has partially, kind of apologized for one of his outbursts -- but this also backs up what Barbara McQuade was saying about prejudicing the jury against the prosecution (under the section "Judge Apologizes" [for a "blistering outburst" at the prosecution] -- and the section below that on the jury developing camaraderie is very interesting).  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2018/08/09/paul-manafort-trial-day-8-live-coverage/?utm_term=.8b04cc0cca66#ellis 

Edited by jjj
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Ive been in court hundreds of times & faced all kinds of judges with varying degrees of difficult personalities.  But this judge's behavior here was sooo over the top.  It was nasty & bullying.  I'd accuse him of being racist (or something else might be going on) in zeroing in such abusiveness to this particular prosecutor.  I was also thinking maybe there's some anti-Mueller bias going on too.

But Rach's guest last nite confirmed this behavior is typical for him.  I think the only reason he apologized (kinda/sorta apologized) was because of the intense coverage & scrutiny he's getting.  But make no mistake, it's a shitty crap apology.  He said it to the jury -- not to the hard-working prosecutor he unfairly & cruely bullied & humiliated.

Here's what's really bothering me -- Manafort's attorney asked Gates if he might have also stolen from the Inaugural Fund (he was deputy) & he said might have.  Wait, uh, WHAT THE WHAT?  OK, he didn't actually say outright he did, BUT he didn't deny stealing either.  Uh, isn't that pretty huge?  And given how much Rach covered the Inaugural Fund & questioned whether Trump was using it as a slush fund -- why the heck isn't Rach all over this?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

But Rach's guest last nite confirmed this behavior is typical for him.  I think the only reason he apologized (kinda/sorta apologized) was because of the intense coverage & scrutiny he's getting.  But make no mistake, it's a shitty crap apology.  He said it to the jury -- not to the hard-working prosecutor he unfairly & cruely bullied & humiliated.

It was more than that.  He was factually wrong, and his "apology" was not an apology.  He said he may have been wrong and it was probably a mistake.  No, no maybe or probably.  He was flat out wrong, and his instructions to the jury were weak in light of that.  I understand prosecutors can't ask for an appeal or mistrial, but if the shoe was on the other foot and the bias was against the defense, Manafort sure could demand a retrial.

Edited by izabella
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

If Rachel ever wants to semi-retire, I would watch a show of her acting out court transcripts all day long.

  • Like 15

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/8/2018 at 10:23 PM, meowmommy said:

I could see Keith Olbermann as her permanent guest host and then taking over for good, but I'm pretty sure he not only burned all his bridges at MSNBC, but scattered the ashes at sea.

 

Keith has burned bridges everywhere he's ever been. I loved him as a viewer, but from everything I've read he's hell on wheels to work with. I've never even heard a whisper of that kind of talk about Rachel. I could see her going to a Mon-Thurs schedule. That would certainly be preferable than her leaving. Of course this is just speculation on my part, but she was just so emphatic  about not missing the show during her vacation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Rachel came to MSNBC first as a commentator on Keith's show, then as his occasional replacement, and from there to her own show.  They always seemed to get along.  The idea of him subbing for her now makes me giggle.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

2 hours ago, SpiritSong said:

but she was just so emphatic  about not missing the show during her vacation.

Did she say she was watching her show on vacation?  I missed that. 

Edited by jjj

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, jjj said:

Did she say she was watching her show on vacation?  I missed that. 

I meant she was emphatic about not missing doing the show during her vacation. Which is pretty normal; I don't think most people having fun on holiday are pining to be at the office instead. But most people can't afford to walk away from their job at such a young age, and she can. As the old saying goes, hardly anyone on their deathbed says they wish they had spent more time at work.

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎8‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 9:59 PM, car54 said:

If Rachel ever wants to semi-retire, I would watch a show of her acting out court transcripts all day long.

I think that Rachel is relishing her work, as stressful as it is. She knows that she is witnessing history.   I remember at the start of this administration, she said this type of reporting is what she and her colleagues live for.

Like everybody she enjoys her days off and being able to decompress from work.  

Plus, she is the darling of MSNBC primetime, they will give her everything that she wants and then some to keep her.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

I watched last night's episode today.

The story about the FL election offices having been hacked was interesting, depressing and for me a little scary. We relocated to FL earlier this year.

I find it interesting that Marco Rubio has  come across as pretty ok to me since I now pay attention to FL politics. Rick Scott? Still nuts 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/11/2018 at 1:45 AM, ScoobieDoobs said:

Chuck Rosenberg:  I'm going to get into some nerdy stuff here . . .

Rachel:  YAY!

Chuck is my very favorite nerd!!  I know women drool over Avenatti and he is definitely a hunk....so is it wrong for me to get all giddy when I see Chuck on TV??  I love the slow pace of his ever so patient speaking voice.....sigh....

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

Just now, sandyskyblue said:

Chuck is my very favorite nerd!!  I know women drool over Avenatti and he is definitely a hunk....so is it wrong for me to get all giddy when I see Chuck on TV??  I love the slow pace of his ever so patient speaking voice.....sigh....

Come sit by me & we'll sip our Chardonnay while drinking in his wisdom ... sigh x 2!!!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎8‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 6:57 PM, ScoobieDoobs said:

I liked her interview with that former prosecutor who has gone before the cranky judge.  Great insight from him on the judge & the trial.  Good interview & good pick for an interview, Rach.

I think you are referring to Gene Rossi -- I had not been overly impressed with his appearance on TRMS (maybe he was nervous, which is understandable!).  But he was on the Katy Tur hour this morning, and was much more animated while still focused on the legal issues.  So, I hope Rachel has him back, because anyone who has been in this judge's courtroom is worth hearing from. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Now I can't remember who said this on Friday's show, maybe it was Chuck Rosenberg. They were talking about the 5-hour delay in court. This guest touched upon something I didn't hear on other programs, that the delay possibly was related to an issue with the jury. The usual reasons were mentioned: discussing the case among themselves or listening to or reading news reports, etc (whether self-reported or reported by others). I immediately wondered if the judge's words and actions which appear to be prejudiced against the prosecution triggered a perception that was reported, prompting the lengthy delay/discussion.  Most likely, the transcript will be released in the future but until then we can only wonder. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Medicine Crow said:

How many other members of the "Chuck Club" do we have?

Here! My Dream Team- Chuck, Jill W-B, Barb McQ, Joyce Vance, Clint Watts; I keep adding to it as Rachel has them on. 

I too thought the five hour delay was about members of the jury discussing what the judge was saying. Apparently during the rest of the day, he gave three admonishments to the jury not to discuss anything related to the case. If it was a simple as a juror reading or hearing something, it would have been handled with a simple interview and either dismissal or retention. Not a five hour situation. But interviewing several jurors about discussing how the judge is making prejudicial comments, then the lawyers and judge having spirited discussion about it? Yeah, that's worth five hours. I can't wait for the transcript to be released. I will be sorely disappointed if it was only about paperwork or something boring!

ETA: Well crap. I just read it had something to do, at least in part, about Calk, the Chicago Bank guy who wanted to be the Army Secretary. 

Edited by Galloway Cave
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

1 hour ago, Medicine Crow said:

It was Chuck giving this as a possible reason for the delay!!

How many other members of the "Chuck Club" do we have?

I call dibs!!!!

On 4/30/2018 at 8:40 PM, meowmommy said:

Chuck Rosenberg is rapidly becoming one of my favorite legal analysts.  He's so earnest and sincere, and he explains things really, really well. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I was disappointed that Rachel said (Thursday?) that it was Barbara McQuade's last day in that courtroom -- I assume she has either a vacation or needs to get back to campus.  And the trial was supposed to begin a week earlier, so she might have thought it would be over by now.  But I really appreciate her perspective and matter-of-fact presentation (along with Joyce Vance and Chuck Rosenberg and Clint Watts!).  Trump did MSNBC (if not the nation) a favor when he fired the U.S. Attorneys (well, McQuade; Vance resigned before he could fire her) and they became available for commentary work (I realize Chuck! came from a different agency).

This is an interesting interview with McQuade, telling how she initially got invited to be on TRMS, and how it works when they ask her to provide commentary -- interviewer is the son of a judge for whom she had clerked:  http://tannerfriedman.com/blog/prosecutor-pundit-one-contributor-got-courtroom-cable-news/  

Edited by jjj
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, jjj said:

Trump did MSNBC (if not the nation) a favor when he fired the U.S. Attorneys (well, McQuade; Vance resigned before he could fire her) and they became available for commentary work (I realize Chuck! came from a different agency).

Of course, CNN snagged the most high-profile of those USAs, Preet Bharara, but folks like Barbara McQuade and Joyce Vance have done a terrific job for MSNBC.

Thanks for the link.

Quote

She’s basically the anti-Jeffrey Lord.

Bwahaha!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, jjj said:

I think you are referring to Gene Rossi -- I had not been overly impressed with his appearance on TRMS (maybe he was nervous, which is understandable!).  But he was on the Katy Tur hour this morning, and was much more animated while still focused on the legal issues.  So, I hope Rachel has him back, because anyone who has been in this judge's courtroom is worth hearing from. 

Your first impression of him was off the mark.  He's the real deal.  I could tell right away.  Plus, his vast experience before this judge made him an absolutely perfect guest for commentary when Rach had him on.  So kudos to Rach's producers for booking him at the right moment.

In what seems like an overload of former prosecutors who are commentators on MSNBC, this guy stands out.  He's super knowledgeable & he's got an engaging personality -- which I thought was surprising, given that he said he was a tax attorney (and they're usually dry as a bone).

When Rach interviewed him, she seemed to imply it was his first appearance.  I bet it was his first apearance on MSNBC.  Sorry, but I thought his appearance with Rach was great.  Not only was he smart & confident in an understated & appealing way, he stated very astute observations on the judge -- that only he would know, having appeared before him.  

And he made very specific predictions of what Manafort will be found guilty of.  Let's see if he turns out to be right.  I was very impressed with him.  Rach seemed to be too.  Don't be surprised if he turns up again on her show.  I'm not surprised he's turning up all over the MSNBC lineup.  This guy is a really good guest.

Edited by ScoobieDoobs
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Two lists from Monday's show:

Chilling:  the list of fired, or "resigned under fire" contemporaneous FBI-colleague witnesses of Comey's recounting of the discussion with Trump.  I was not overly concerned, because they have not been poisoned, but I suppose the point is that some consider them to be less reliable because they were fired.  But that was an amazing list.

Hilarious yet horrifying:  the list of "Perspective Rolls" of the bank CEO's administrative wishes.  I was so dazzled by "perspective" that I did not even see "rolls" at first.  And Rachel, where he said "prospers" on the first page, I think he meant "sponsors".  Hey, no one said you had to be able to spell to get into this administration.  And I suspect this person will not be managing his bank much longer, if that $11 million loan is not repaid.  (Or as Rachel said, his "teeeeny, tiny bank".)  

1 hour ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Your first impression of him was off the mark.  He's the real deal.  I could tell right away.  Plus, his vast experience before this judge made him an absolutely perfect guest for commentary when Rach had him on.  So kudos to Rach's producers for booking him at the right moment.

In what seems like an overload of former prosecutors who are commentators on MSNBC, this guy stands out.  He's super knowledgeable & he's got an engaging personality -- which I thought was surprising, given that he said he was a tax atattorney (and they're usually dry as a bone).

When Rach interviewed him, she seemed to imply it was his first appearance.  I bet it was his first apearance on MSNBC.  Sorry, but I thought his appearance with Rach was great.  Not only was he smart & confident in an understated & appealing way, he stated very astute observations on the judge -- that only he would know, having appeared before him.  

And he made very specific predictions of what Manafort will be found guilty of.  Let's see if he turns out to be right.  I was very impressed with him.  Rach seemed to be too.  Don't be surprised if he turns up again on her show.  I'm not surprised he's turning up all over the MSNBC lineup.  This guy is a really good guest.

Oh yes, I was admitting I pegged him wrong when I first saw him on Rachel's show last week!  I might not have bene focused enough to appreciate him on Rachel's show, but that was me, clearly, not him.  And I saw the light today!  

Oh, cool, Lawrence O'Donnell is pointing out that Rachel did not devote a segment to "Unhinged."  I had to stop watching the channel today because it seemed non-stop.  Thank goodness Rachel took the time to note the end of the prosecution case in the Manafort trial.  

Edited by jjj
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

I did note that Rachel near the end of the show said she was bolted to her seat -- I guess assuring us that there is no vacation this week?  

Share this post


Link to post

Love that Rach barely mentioned Omarosa.  Now if only the other nitwits at MSNBC would follow suit.  Yeah sure.  Will not happen.  It's like asking 'em to stop playing those damn fucking Rudy & Trump clips that I can't stand & have to immediately put on mute or shut off.

Edited by ScoobieDoobs
  • Like 4

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size