All Episodes Talk: TRMS 2018 Season

[izabella]

Avenatti wasn't wrong about Trump paying hush money to Stormy Daniels to influence the election, nor about Cohen, and he's legit been helping families separated at the border by our government.  Yes, he works the media, but he hasn't been full of shit yet.

[meowmommy]

38 minutes ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Uh, did Rachel know that Avenatti was also on at the exact same time on CNN with Cuomo?  Look, I like Avenatti, but he better not be pulling a fake PR stunt.

That may have been the reason Rachel wasn't sure until the last second if he was actually going to be there.  Because it can't ever be that he misses an opportunity to get in front of a camera.  The saving grace, as izabella said above, is that just about everything he's promised has come true.

He kept yelling, as if he was in a wind tunnel or something.  It was very distracting. 

56 minutes ago, Galloway Cave said:

I got the feeling Rachel was a little pissed that Avenatti didn't tell the complete story about his client/witness and the other witnesses. He only reiterated what he had already tweeted and added she would make full disclosure within 48 hours.

You're right; there really wasn't much new information that hasn't already been made public.  He was very cutesy and coy, a lot like he was in his first interview with Rachel.  He's really much more suited to LOD's format and style than Rachel's.  LOD treats him like a rock star and Rachel regards him as something nasty and icky to be tolerated when necessary.

[stormy]

I thought the interview with Avenatti was interesting.  But I think she seemed a bit skeptical until he produces the witness and it was even evident in the hand over to LO.

It is true that he doesn't just throw shit against the wall to see what will stick.

Edited September 25, 2018 by stormy

[Earmuffs Mom]

I was disappointed with his interview because he revealed nothing new other than they would reveal his client in 48 hours.  Given the way Rachel hyped the interview, I think she expected more from him.  I get annoyed with Avenatti's cutesy, coy, piecemeal parsing of information for maximum publicity.  Just blow the damn thing up already and show the people what you have.  I don't know exactly what there is to gain by dragging it out for 48 hours.  Thursday already seems dubious given the most recent letter from Dr. Ford's attorneys.  

[TexasGal]

14 hours ago, meowmommy said:

He kept yelling, as if he was in a wind tunnel or something.  It was very distracting. 

 

Where WAS he?  The lobby of a restaurant or something?  At some point it sounded like there were little kids screaming in the background.  So weird.

[roughing it]

On ‎9‎/‎22‎/‎2018 at 8:37 PM, attica said:

The whole NYT Rosenstein story just struck me as a SQUIRREL!!! bit

Sorry, back to last week.  I wonder if the "anonymous source" cooked up the story (along with the WH spin team) about Rosenstein taping Trump and sold it to NYT as a "true story".  The story would then give Trump the leverage he needs to fire Rosenstein based on this "anonymous" tip, however made up it was.  That they are indeed making up their own fake news.

[ScoobieDoobs]

20 hours ago, meowmommy said:

That may have been the reason Rachel wasn't sure until the last second if he was actually going to be there.  Because it can't ever be that he misses an opportunity to get in front of a camera.  The saving grace, as izabella said above, is that just about everything he's promised has come true.

He kept yelling, as if he was in a wind tunnel or something.  It was very distracting. 

You're right; there really wasn't much new information that hasn't already been made public.  He was very cutesy and coy, a lot like he was in his first interview with Rachel.  He's really much more suited to LOD's format and style than Rachel's.  LOD treats him like a rock star and Rachel regards him as something nasty and icky to be tolerated when necessary.

Well, the point is he made big confident promises -- and let's see if he delivers.  He's probably NOT full of crap, but shit happens.  Maybe his accuser backs out or maybe he discovers her story is not especially accurate or reliable.  If that's the case, he's made it worse for Dr. Ford cuz Trump is now slamming her hard & some loon is offering 25 thou for dirt on her.  Would this have happened if Avenatti had NOT shot his mouth off?  Maybe, maybe not.  And it leaves Rach with the lovely feeling she was part of it.

I wonder if Rach regretted having Avenatti on.  She shoulda left him to spout out for LOD & Cuomo.  I was nauseated to see him on at the exact time (when he was with Rach) on CNN.  OK, we all know he's a media ho, but Rach got played by him if she thought this was some big scoop.

The Rosenstein story was fake news planted by Trumpers for a distraction from the Kavanaugh mess.  The Times stupidly let themselves get played.  Hopefully, Rach won't devote much time to it on Thursday.  I'd hate to see her let herself get played on this one too.

Edited September 26, 2018 by ScoobieDoobs

[stormy]

Well I'm not ready to make a judgement on Avenetti's claim of having a credible witness yet.

But I don't like that she's waiting till practically the last minute.  McConnell has already scheduled a vote for Friday,

Edited September 26, 2018 by stormy

[ScoobieDoobs]

Welp, tonite Rachel signed off, seeming perfectly OK with Avenatti & taking a we'll-see approach on whether his accuser comes forward.  Mmmm, OK then.  Rachel seemed jokey & upbeat about all this stuff goin' on.  Wish I could catch that from her, but sorry, I can't.  Rachel's baffled descriptions of the way Senate Repubs are handling this make me wanna vomit.

[izabella]

3 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Rachel seemed jokey & upbeat about all this stuff goin' on.  Wish I could catch that from her, but sorry, I can't.  Rachel's baffled descriptions of the way Senate Repubs are handling this make me wanna vomit.

I am often baffled by Rachel's jokey manner in the middle of some very serious events.  The Republicans in the Senate are pulling out all the stops in a naked power grab, and they are brazenly showing women exactly how the "ole boys" club, and "boys will be boys" club stack the deck against us and discount and dismiss us.  I don't understand why Rachel is baffled about what they are doing by hiring an outside lawyer and keeping her name a secret.  They are trying to ambush Dr. Blasey Ford so she can't prepare for what they are dishing up.  In the meantime, I suspect their hired lawyer is huddled with Kavanaugh and his GOP and administration handlers right now scripting her questions and his answers.  The GOP are setting up a sham hearing so they can say "we gave her a fair hearing," Rachel.  It's not amusing or funny.   Maybe she is trying for absurd.

Edited September 26, 2018 by izabella

[attica]

It's very much common for her to take a 'we can't possibly understand their reasons for x action unless they explain it' route, as she did last night. ("Isn't it weird that they'd hire an outside prosecutor? And weird that they're keeping her ID secret? They've never done that before!") But that is simply not the case. We know them by their actions. We know preeeeecisely wtf is going on, and it deserves not bafflement, but contempt.

[ScoobieDoobs]

So Avenatti is on tonite with Cuomo & LOD, but NOT with Rach?  Hmmm.

Good reading of Dr. Ford's testimony, Rach.  Man, broke my heart listening to it.  Let's see just how Trump & the Senate Repubs are gonna get past this.

Edited September 27, 2018 by ScoobieDoobs

[Morrigan2575]

I'm worried about the Colorado letter, the Repubs released that info too easily. I fear it's a setup.

Rachel reading Dr Ford's opening statement was disturbing because the event described was so easily believable. 

[SpiritSong]

I'm grateful to Rachel for warning us that Brian Williams will be anchoring the Kavanaugh hearing. Now I know to tune in to CNN.

[ScoobieDoobs]

Sigh, watched Rach tonite to make me feel better.  I don't feel better.  Rach, please don't show any more clips of that lying, angry, ranting judge.  I can't watch it.

[M. Darcy]

Rachel was the only show I watched last night. I watched The Good Place instead of Chris Hayes and only lasted 3 minutes during Lawrence.

I am glad she emphasized that exchange between Senator Klobuchar and Kavanaugh. That was beyond inappropriate from him.  Imagine if a woman nominee had accused a male Senator of being a drunk. 

[TexasGal]

7 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Sigh, watched Rach tonite to make me feel better.  I don't feel better.  Rach, please don't show any more clips of that lying, angry, ranting judge.  I can't watch it.

I had listened to the hearing at work and thought he sounded bad enough - but seeing clips on Rachel made it even worse.  The snarling face he had when he was throwing accusations back at the senators, esp Sen Klobuchar, was just disgusting.  So, of course he'll get confirmed.

[taanja]

3 hours ago, M. Darcy said:

Rachel was the only show I watched last night. 

 

Yup. And even then I couldn't watch the entire hour. I watched fluff and nonsense instead. The reality of the hearings was too much by the evening. And of course KavaNaughty will be confirmed. Sigh.

[stormy]

Agree. His insane, over the top angry white man speech was too much.

[izabella]

3 hours ago, TexasGal said:

I had listened to the hearing at work and thought he sounded bad enough - but seeing clips on Rachel made it even worse.  The snarling face he had when he was throwing accusations back at the senators, esp Sen Klobuchar, was just disgusting.  So, of course he'll get confirmed.

This.  You really had to SEE him in order to get the full picture.  And if you saw him, I suspect it would be very easy to believe he absolutely was the ragey, rapey privileged douche bro his yearbook depicts him to be.

[ScoobieDoobs]

Well, Rach was right to point out that his horrible temperment & ridiculously obvious partisanship should disqualify him as a judge -- let alone a justice on the Supreme Court.

Maybe Rach should start every show with that shot of him, looking wild & red-faced, ranting & whining about some Clinton revenge hit job.  Or not.  Imagine if Dr. Ford had acted so unhinged?  And that's the behavior of a Supreme Court justice.  Rach was still saying "if" he gets on the Supreme Court.  I can't hang onto that anymore, but it's nice Rach still is.  Keep the spotlight on Murkowski & Collins, Rach.

[izabella]

4 minutes ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Imagine if Dr. Ford had acted so unhinged?

Hysterical is the word that would have been used to describe her.  Hysterical.

[stormy]

It pained me see his disrespect of female senators on the committee.

Murkowski and Collins should be out today and showing at least the smallest amount of support for their colleagues.

[izabella]

19 minutes ago, stormy said:

It pained me see his disrespect of female senators on the committee.

As Rachel pointed out, he's not just a nominee in a job interview interrupting and yelling at his interviewers.  He is currently a sitting judge who is interrupting and yelling at US Senators.  He is not fit for the job he has, much less a seat on the SC.

[ScoobieDoobs]

Rach was right to point out his disturbing comfort in interrupting female senators.  But note that he only did it to the ones he knew he could get away with.  Kamala Harris?  She woulda throttled him with a mere look.  And he was an interrupting, whining man-baby to Whitehouse & Blumenthal.  So he didn't do it to just the women Senators.  That behavior was a disgraceful public display.  But keep showing it, Rach.

I did like Rach showing the bewildered looks on the female prosecutor after Repubs pretty much dumped her.

And Rach was right in highlighting Kamala Harris' last question about whether he watched Dr. Ford's testimony.  Her testimony seems to have been totally wiped out by Repub Senators -- as if it never happened.  Keep mentioning & showing her heart-wrenching testimony, Rach -- particularly where she says how they were laughing uproriously at her expense, while he was sexually assaulting her.  And this is who Trump has given us as a Supreme Court Justice.

[stormy]

And it's not even suprising. Hell, I would venture to say, his bat shit crazy rant, saying witch hunt, was written by trump and his team.

[taanja]

I am old enough to have watched the Anita Hill hearings. and it seems not much has changed.

Will Rachel be on tonight? I rarely watch TV on Friday nights but I may have to check out what she has to say.

[izabella]

1 hour ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

I did like Rach showing the bewildered looks on the female prosecutor after Repubs pretty much dumped her.

They violated her trust, as they did Dr. Ford's - that's what those looks Rachel showed said to me.  They hired her to do their jobs for them, and then when she was doing their job and their boy couldn't answer her questions without incriminating himself, they fired her in front of everyone and didn't bother to tell her first.

Edited September 28, 2018 by izabella

[Jaded]

Joy is filling in for Rachel who has the night off.

[ScoobieDoobs]

On 9/28/2018 at 3:59 PM, stormy said:

And it's not even suprising. Hell, I would venture to say, his bat shit crazy rant, saying witch hunt, was written by trump and his team.

I'm pretty sure Rachel mentioned last week that Kavanaugh was being prepped in the WH by former Fox exec Bill Shine for many, many, many hours.  This seems to have been completely forgotten now, but it's surely where his performance of being buddy-buddy with his Repub/bro Senators, while viciously attacking & ranting on the Dem Senators came from.  Oh, and it's surely the source/origin of his weird Clinton revenge plot nonsense.

But Rachel kept repeating that his small (really obvious) lies were telling cuz they're usually indicative of much, much BIGGER lies.  Good, Rach -- keep your spotlight on him!

Edited October 1, 2018 by ScoobieDoobs

[stormy]

Anyone know when Rachel's coming back? I haven't watched the past couple of shows without her.

Edited October 2, 2018 by stormy

[Medicine Crow]

32 minutes ago, stormy said:

Anyone know when Rachel's coming back? I haven't watched the past couple of shows without her.

Tonight.

[attica]

Tonight! Joy promised.

[suomi]

Team Maddow with a scoop: Rach publicly premiers an affadavit from someone in Kavanaugh's circle of friends. During a virginity-losing conversation Kavanaugh Judge shared "with a degree of shame" that his occurred when he participated in a drunken gang bang in college prep school. She attests that she and Kavanaugh Judge were sober during this conversation. The FBI has been aware of this since April August and has yet to respond to it.

ETA: added strike-throughs and corrections because my cognitive skills were horribily deficient. I am so sorry.

Edited October 3, 2018 by suomi

[ottoDbusdriver]

9 hours ago, suomi said:

Team Maddow with a scoop: Rach publicly premiers an affadavit from someone in Kavanaugh's circle of friends. During a virginity-losing conversation Kavanaugh shared "with a degree of shame" that his occurred when he participated in a drunken gang bang in college. She attests that she and Kavanaugh were sober during this conversation. The FBI has been aware of this since April and has yet to respond to it. 

Holy crap !

Especially the part about the FBI knowing about it since April -- before Kavanaugh was even nominated.

ETA:  I haven't seen this episode yet, but per @suomi 's update downthread some of the details need corrected here.
Still make me wonder if this even was noted in Kavanuagh's calendar.

Edited October 3, 2018 by ottoDbusdriver

[sadiegirl]

I don't think that's correct. The conversation was between his friend Judge (can't remember his first name) and Judge's girlfriend. Not Brett.

The ex FBI gave me hope last week and completely bummed me out tonight.

[suomi]

I will watch again, I thought she referred to Kavanaugh. Even more intriguing if it is Judge - that she/her atty would report on him (on anyone) in April.

[Quilt Fairy]

35 minutes ago, sadiegirl said:

I don't think that's correct. The conversation was between his friend Judge (can't remember his first name) and Judge's girlfriend. Not Brett.

The ex FBI gave me hope last week and completely bummed me out tonight.

You're correct.  It was a girlfriend of Mark Judge who reported the conversation between Judge and herself.

[ScoobieDoobs]

What I found absolutely fascinating was Rachel's convo with the Times reporter who worked on the Trump story -- and in particular, how she got started on the story.  She said she saw his returns from '95, which she said showed he had losses of a billion, BUT she said it was the tax returns Rach showed from 2005, which made her question that something didn't seem right. 

Uh, remember how everyone was saying that Rach had a big nothing with those returns?  Guess not, eh?  The Times reporter said it was the discrepancies between the '95 returns & the ones Rach showed which led the reporter to probe into Trump's father & specifically the sale of much of his father's assets in '94 -- and that led to the reality of what was going on.

I'm glad Rachel spent so much of the hour on the Trump con.  CNN mostly dismissed it cuz most of their talking heads said nobody would prosecute it, so who cares.  Bullshit!  Rach knew better & was all over it.  Yay, Rach!

And yes, Elizabeth Razor, the ex-girlfriend of Mark Judge, signed a sworn affidavit which included the above about Kavanuagh last Wednesday.  She just released it publicly because the FBI didn't seem interested.  Rach seems to be all over this one too -- that is, if this supposed FBI investigation is as much of a sham as it seems to be.  Glad you're back, Rach.

Edited October 3, 2018 by ScoobieDoobs

[suomi]

1 hour ago, sadiegirl said:

I don't think that's correct. The conversation was between his friend Judge (can't remember his first name) and Judge's girlfriend. Not Brett.

The ex FBI gave me hope last week and completely bummed me out tonight.

You are exactly right, sadiegirl. I am so sorry for posting bogus information. Thank you for correcting me. Mea culpa! She was Judge's college gf for 2 years and knew Kavanaugh through him. It was Judge who confessed to her that he gave it up while participating in a gang bang during his time at Georgetown Prep. Her original statement was dated in August, not April, and her affidavit has a September date. So, yes, this is old news. I think I went awry when Rach said she was revealing the affidavit for the first time publicly (not the information itself). The FBI has not interviewed her. (Sheesh, at least I got that part right).

I know I read too fast sometimes; evidently, I can watch and listen too fast as well. And I apologize for that. :(

[Hanahope]

How does someone lose money from running a casino that they need their father to give it $3.5 million?  And I note that it was solely an interest payment, not even principal.    And apparently once daddy dearest could not longer pay for donny's boo-boos, he later filed for bankruptcy.  I hope that something can be done about donny's fraud, even if its only civil penalties and fines, which would be a huge amount.

[stormy]

Well the people in the know seem to think the state of NY will catch up to him now that the NYT story came out.

I hope Rachel will have some of these people on tonight.

[attica]

I skimmed the NYT piece, but my eyes glazed over. I was grateful for TRMS for teasing it out for me. Now I feel like I understand it beyond OMG GIANT FRAUD.

[TexasGal]

2 minutes ago, attica said:

I skimmed the NYT piece, but my eyes glazed over. I was grateful for TRMS for teasing it out for me. Now I feel like I understand it beyond OMG GIANT FRAUD.

The online version had some nifty graphics/videos that helped explain some of the big pieces.

I love how he's tweeting that it's boring.  B!tch, we know you are reading every word and making notes with your sharpie.  With lots of exclamation points.  NOT FAIR!!!  LIARS!!!  FAILING!!!

[izabella]

23 minutes ago, stormy said:

Well the people in the know seem to think the state of NY will catch up to him now that the NYT story came out.

I'm mystified why they weren't caught at the time.  No one talking about this story seems to mention that.  It makes me wonder what he is doing now and how he is funneling money now to hide his kids' inheritance so they don't pay taxes.  Why isn't any of this timely?   If we don't pre-pay estimated taxes quarterly, or if the IRS doesn't think it's enough, we get tax notices and penalties.  How is it that the IRS pays such close attention to my lowly income but massive frauds are completely missed for entire lifetimes until the NYT decides to investigate?

[sistermagpie]

7 minutes ago, izabella said:

I'm mystified why they weren't caught at the time.  No one talking about this story seems to mention that.  It makes me wonder what he is doing now and how he is funneling money now to hide his kids' inheritance so they don't pay taxes.  Why isn't any of this timely?   If we don't pre-pay estimated taxes quarterly, or if the IRS doesn't think it's enough, we get tax notices and penalties.  How is it that the IRS pays such close attention to my lowly income but massive frauds are completely missed for entire lifetimes until the NYT decides to investigate?

It seems people just stopped going after white collar criminals, period. Gotta focus on those people who have weed in their pocket instead.

[Hooper]

Quote

I love how he's tweeting that it's boring.  B!tch, we know you are reading every word and making notes with your sharpie.  With lots of exclamation points.  NOT FAIR!!!  LIARS!!!  FAILING!!!

I agree with this.  Except for the "reading every word" part.  But perhaps he's having his minions prepare some coloring books to illustrate the article for him.  I hope Rachel comes back to this.  Kavanaugh is important, but everyone is covering that.  I need Rachel to make money laundering comprehensible to me.  It's either her, or I'll need a coloring book also.

[Hanahope]

59 minutes ago, izabella said:

I'm mystified why they weren't caught at the time.  No one talking about this story seems to mention that.  It makes me wonder what he is doing now and how he is funneling money now to hide his kids' inheritance so they don't pay taxes.  Why isn't any of this timely?   If we don't pre-pay estimated taxes quarterly, or if the IRS doesn't think it's enough, we get tax notices and penalties.  How is it that the IRS pays such close attention to my lowly income but massive frauds are completely missed for entire lifetimes until the NYT decides to investigate?

Yeah, no kidding.  I can only guess that people like donny have tax returns that are an inch or more thick, whereas the rest of us have a few pages at most.  Much easier to review 3-5 pages and do the math on same than on 300.  Plus, i don't think the government funds the IRS sufficiently, because no one likes to pay taxes.

[ScoobieDoobs]

2 hours ago, izabella said:

I'm mystified why they weren't caught at the time.  No one talking about this story seems to mention that.  It makes me wonder what he is doing now and how he is funneling money now to hide his kids' inheritance so they don't pay taxes.  Why isn't any of this timely?   If we don't pre-pay estimated taxes quarterly, or if the IRS doesn't think it's enough, we get tax notices and penalties.  How is it that the IRS pays such close attention to my lowly income but massive frauds are completely missed for entire lifetimes until the NYT decides to investigate?

Rach needs to get that reporter back & ask her how she's gonna follow up with this.  His kids' inheritance?  Uh, what inheritance?  Jr. & Eric are in for a rude awakening when Daddy croaks.  At least Ivanka married rich.

The Times reporter that Rach spoke with last nite found out his story of being self-made was a total fraud.  That's great.  But it'd be even better if she can uncover what he's really worth now & if he's been pulling tax scams as of more recently.  That will be much harder.  

Sounds like the reporter got lucky thru a clever hunch in searching Trump's father's info.  She got past info.  But will it lead to more recent stuff?  Get the reporter back & ask her, Rach.

Edited October 3, 2018 by ScoobieDoobs

[ahisma]

11 hours ago, Hanahope said:

How does someone lose money from running a casino that they need their father to give it $3.5 million?

Right? Casinos practically print money. But at the time the businessman-in-chief was pulling cash out of the casino right and left to do whatever sounded cool to him, like buy an airline or a football team, without securing the casino's actual operations needs. I love that Rachel had the time to at least paint the picture of the poker chip buy.