Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
saoirse

All Episodes Talk: TRMS 2018 Season

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

LOD is clearly entertained by & enamoured of Avenatti.  Rach?  Not so much.  Anyone notice her giving him some side-eye -- maybe even a suspect & slight stink-eye? In her signoff convo with LOD, she begrudgingly called him "sure-footed". I suspect that's about the best compliment  Rach has to offer, regarding Avenatti.

She seemed to be bothered that ANY of what he offered up was not true, even if it was a tiny percent. And she wasn't buying his explanation of it.  Not sure I agreed with her on that.  But her questions to him were on target.

Agree with all of this. I do think it was careless of him to let those errors slip through, though I don't require perfection of anyone, since it's never going to happen. She was tough, but fair, just like she is to all of her guests.

Avenatti was clearly withholding some information, as is his right, but overall he's not nearly as slippery as most of the politicians she interviews. He's playing the media game brilliantly, and accomplishing more than anyone out there who is free to speak publicly (unlike Mueller who is constrained from telling us what he knows.)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

While I do like Avenatti, I also like that Rach is looking way beyond what his motives are.  She was asking if we (the public) should even know what he's offering up -- and if it will actually harm the Mueller team's work.  I get why she's giving him a hard side-eye.

Not sure where this Michael Cohen stuff is going -- especially if everything he did was legal, but sure glad Rachel is on it & asking the right questions.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I wish one of the hosts that interview Avenatti would ask him who is paying for HIS services.   

At this point, originally he wanted Stormy to be free of her NDA, and I think she was willing to return the $130,000---not sure if he is asking for damages and he gets a %---I've never heard that but he seems to be spending a LOT of his work time on Stormy's behalf, so I wonder who is paying his fees?  At this point, give that he's on tv on her behalf for literally hours several days a week, his fees must be astronomical.
I love that he's doing what he's doing but nobody seems interested in what, other than getting his client out of her NDA he is getting from this and I'd really be interested to hear it.  I was hoping, since Rachel is less of a fangirl than Lawrence that she might dig into that.   To be honest I was pretty surprised that she had him on at all--he seems like more of a Chris Hayes or LOD kind of guy.    

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

She was asking if we (the public) should even know what he's offering up -- and if it will actually harm the Mueller team's work.  I get why she's giving him a hard side-eye.

Every time she looked hard at Avenatti, I imagined a thought bubble above her head, with the words "And DON'T f**k it up!!" (said in RuPaul's voice). The last thing she wants is some side case screwing up the downfall of Trump.

3 minutes ago, car54 said:

I wish one of the hosts that interview Avenatti would ask him who is paying for HIS services. 

 

3 minutes ago, car54 said:

but nobody seems interested in what, other than getting his client out of her NDA he is getting from this and I'd really be interested to hear it. 

Rachel DID ask both of these questions. He said he is being paid by Stormy and a crowdjustice.com fund. Info is here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/bwmfocdimn2uegn/Statement re Legal Fees.pdf?dl=0

He is also doing this to expose Cohen and his crap, as well as Trump's connections to said crap. Of course, there is unsaid future book deals, paid consultant fees on networks, possibly a TV show of his own, who knows. He has shown himself to be quite the savey TV personality. 

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post

Thank you for telling me this---I must have missed that part!  I will try to go back and watch it online to catch it.     I do think he is doing some of it to further our awareness of how much corruption there is and to get back at Cohen for treating Stormy like crap--but there's no question he is now a very famous lawyer who will probably be very in demand to make appearances in the future.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

While I do like Avenatti, I also like that Rach is looking way beyond what his motives are.  She was asking if we (the public) should even know what he's offering up -- and if it will actually harm the Mueller team's work.  I get why she's giving him a hard side-eye.

Not sure where this Michael Cohen stuff is going -- especially if everything he did was legal, but sure glad Rachel is on it & asking the right questions.

I don't believe he would do anything to harm the Mueller investigation. Avenatti is smart and he knows the law.

If anything, he's probably helping by keeping Cohen and trump's probable crimes front and center in the news everyday. You don't hear these things from the Democrats and if you did, they would just be accused of partisanship.

I hope Rachel has him back on her show when the next big new development hits, because there was a completely different vibe to her interview than when he's on LOD. If she's more skeptical, I don't think that's a bad thing.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

A reminder - this is the spot to discuss what happens on episodes of The Rachel Maddow Show - not appearances on other shows by guests, or the social media of guests. Posts have been removed; further off topic posts will be removed, and warnings or more could be incurred.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Galloway Cave said:

Every time she looked hard at Avenatti, I imagined a thought bubble above her head, with the words "And DON'T f**k it up!!" (said in RuPaul's voice). The last thing she wants is some side case screwing up the downfall of Trump.

Rachel DID ask both of these questions. He said he is being paid by Stormy and a crowdjustice.com fund. Info is here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/bwmfocdimn2uegn/Statement re Legal Fees.pdf?dl=0

He is also doing this to expose Cohen and his crap, as well as Trump's connections to said crap. Of course, there is unsaid future book deals, paid consultant fees on networks, possibly a TV show of his own, who knows. He has shown himself to be quite the savey TV personality. 

Rachel is like New York City: if you can make it on her show, you can make it anywhere.  (By which I mean not be exposed as an idiot and taking the opportunities she hands you to shine.)  Avenatti did well; I have mostly see him on early morning shows, where he was more about style and coyness ("I could tell you more, but I won't"), and I was curious to see how he would handle a more serious interview like Rachel provided.  I also think this is all a long audition for his own television career, whatever it might be.  He knows when to stop talking, which the better lawyer consultants on Rachel's show also know. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Mmmm, I suspect Rachel won't have Avenatti back.  Er, so why the heck was he there in the first place?  Uh, maybe because he was dead center in the biggest breaking news of the week on Michael Cohen -- and how it could ultimately affect the Mueller investigation & Trump.

Think she had him on cuz of Stormy?  Ha!  She clearly can't stand talking about that.  Not that she has anything against Stormy.  I'm sure she doesn't.  That's not Rach's style at all.  But she clearly can't stand the sleaziness of the Stormy story.  ITA.  Didn't she say the other nite how she can't believe she's still talking about it, while kinda making an ew-face sneer?

What I'm really surprised at, is why she didn't just turn to Avenatti & ask him directly -- so dude, wth does all this have to do with your case for Stormy?  She kinda did ask him this, but she was almost too kind & timid.  But that's Rach.  If she's suspect of his motives & thinks he's a grand-stander & merely looking to be on TV every nite, she shoulda reflected that in her questioning of him.

All Rach did was make a snide remark about him getting a lot of money for his services.  But she did get in more probing questions than LOD would ever ask -- and Avenatti held up fine.  The guy isn't just cool & sharp -- he's extremely well-prepared & it shows.  If Rachel doesn't care for him, I'd luv to hear what she does think of him & why.  Oh c'mon, Rach, share with us!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Think she had him on cuz of Stormy?  Ha!  She clearly can't stand talking about that.  Not that she has anything against Stormy.  I'm sure she doesn't.  That's not Rach's style at all.  But she clearly can't stand the sleaziness of the Stormy story.  ITA.  Didn't she say the other nite how she can't believe she's still talking about it, while kinda making an ew-face sneer?

I think she had him on for the reason I alluded to up-thread--the new connection to the Russia scandal, which is right in her wheelhouse.  All the other aspects have been more than covered by other journalists and other venues.  And as I also said up-thread, the whole Stormy Daniels topic makes her squeamish, which I appreciate, because it makes me squeamish, too.  I really, really don't enjoy discussion of pee-pee tapes and spanking with a magazine and how Ms. Daniels reminds 45 of his daughter and all the other salacious details, even if those details may eventually help end our long national nightmare.  So I'm always grateful for the respite during TRMS.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I read the interview as Rachel not having him on the show just because of the Stormy story, but because of all the financial details that flowed from that part of the investigation.  And because she drew Cohen into the Trump finances at a crucial moment, the financial accounting of so much related work/deals is making this a massive story.  Kind of the opposite of the Whitewater investigation, which started with finances and ended up with the sexual encounter being the headline.  This will end with the finances being the headline.  I thought Rachel's question about 'so, how is this connected to the finances/campaign?" was to make clear that her intention was to skip from the sordid parts to the financial implications. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Wow, Rachel just said "mis-CHEE-VEE-ous."  This is coming from a Rhodes Scholar.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Wow, it's clear Rachel can't stand Michael Avenatti. Have no idea why-maybe she thinks he's a media whore? But to suggest he was releasing information as a publicity stunt was a little beyond the pale. At least she finally admitted that the information he released was, once again, pertinent and correct.

I enjoyed her interview with him, which was more hard hitting than many. But if she can't keep her distaste for him hidden, I'd rather she doesn't have him back as a guest.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah, she clearly wouldn't have Avenatti back.  She said he has "a flair for the dramatic" & assumed he was just looking for attention with something "lurid or provocative".  Wow, Rach.  She seemed really surprised this Qatari story, which got a spotlight with Avenatti's tweet, was confirmed by a Qatari official.  Man, she sure had a stink-face look when she discussed Avenatti again in her sign-off with LOD.  Have to admit, I'm with Rach if she thinks the guy needs to take a break from TV for a bit.

This was not a great show.  Look, the Qatari story is a complicated one & Rach's telling was funky.  I was confused & had re-watch to tell WTF was going on.  Her guest had an interesting take. 

But her start-off story was of no interest to me -- something about a mistaken bomb drop-off by armed forces in Montana?  Idk, I couldn't follow it & didn't give a shit one way or another.  Rach, do you need a day or so to get your groove back after your fishing trips?

On the plus side, Rach's ZTE coverage & dot-connecting was OK, but CNN has been all over this.  Schiff was a good guest to have.

Edited by ScoobieDoobs

Share this post


Link to post

I missed most of the show and repeat, so appreciate these observations.  Every show is covering the ZTE story, usually leading with it, and I just don't need to know that much about it (although I detest the financial self-interest).  Will save the podcast but approach with caution. 

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

But her start-off story was of no interest to me -- something about a mistaken bomb drop-off by armed forces in Montana?

The way she was describing it was weird. She kept calling it a box or crate. It was an ammo can full of live grenades that fell off the back of an armed forces truck in North Dakota. They went back later when they realized it was missing and searched for it but it was gone. They didn't notify the local law enforcement until three days ago. Ammo cans are expensive and are considered one of the best kind of treasures to find. Full of live grenades? Depends on who found it. They have probably already been sold to someone who really shouldn't have them.

I am a river guide and we use painted ammo cans for storing everything from food to gear to poop, because the cans are waterproof. We have heard stories from other guides of loosing ammo cans of poop falling off of trucks on the way to the RV dump stations. Not considered a good kind of treasure when found....

The Qatar story is confusing as hell to me, even with Rachel explaining it. I think I have reached my saturation point with all these stories.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

A bribery theme ties the Qatari story and the ZTE story together.  Avenatti teased, and then posted a picture of a Qatari official meeting Cohen at Trump Tower in December, during the transition.  The surprise for Rachel was that Qatar confirmed the dude in the picture was indeed a Qatari official, and that Qatari officials did indeed meet with the transition team on that date.  Considering what we know of Cohen's finances, it's entirely possible Qatar tried to bribe Cohen (I call the AT&T and Novartis payments to Cohen bribes because they expected access, influence, or favorable consideration).  Corporate bribes are one thing; bribes from foreign countries are a threat to national security.

Trump's sudden switch to lift sanctions and make ZTE great again is very likely due to a bribe by China to loan money to finance golf courses and hotels in Indonesia with Trump's name on them.   Again, corporate bribery is one thing.  Lifting sanctions on a Chinese company the US deemed a national security risk in exchange for personal gain and profit is a sign that this POTUS is a threat to our national security.

Rachel seemed off her game today.

Edited by izabella
  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, izabella said:

A bribery theme ties the Qatari story and the ZTE story together.  Avenatti teased, and then posted a picture of a Qatari official meeting Cohen at Trump Tower in December, during the transition.  The surprise for Rachel was that Qatar confirmed the dude in the picture was indeed a Qatari official, and that Qatari officials did indeed meet with the transition team on that date.  Considering what we know of Cohen's finances, it's entirely possible Qatar tried to bribe Cohen (I call the AT&T and Novartis payments to Cohen bribes because they expected access, influence, or favorable consideration).  Corporate bribes are one thing; bribes from foreign countries are a threat to national security.

Trump's sudden switch to lift sanctions and make ZTE great again is very likely due to a bribe by China to loan money to finance golf courses and hotels in Indonesia with Trump's name on them.   Again, corporate bribery is one thing.  Lifting sanctions on a Chinese company the US deemed a national security risk in exchange for personal gain and profit is a sign that this POTUS is a threat to our national security.

Rachel seemed off her game today.

 

Congrats, you made clearer dot-connecting than Rach!  

Oh Rach, please stop being distracted by (& just forget about) your intense dislike for Avenatti & go with the dot-connecting, will ya?  Sheesh, Avenatti, you really do need to take a break & shut your yap for a bit.

Hopefully, tonite the fishies have swum outta Rach's head & she'll be more on her game . . .

Edited by ScoobieDoobs
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I thoroughly enjoyed the basketball explication, with its highlight of multiple usages of "Mr. Cube." (Did you know his actual son played him in the movie?!? Hee!)

I disliked the interview with Schiff, though. So much disingenuous 'there must be a reasonable reason for 45 to be all ZTE-zowie, we're just puzzled' rather than, oh this is dirrrrrrrty from jump, there, orange boy. Sure, that was the subtext, but I'm annoyed that he's being given even rhetorical cover. Because he'll take it and run.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, izabella said:

Huge pet peeve of mine!  I expect better of you, Rachel!!

Every time I hear someone mispronounce that word, my left eye twitches.

Like Lawrence, I love Avenatti but I do wish he'd take a media break.

Share this post


Link to post

I thought Rachel was going to make a different connection with her Big-3 basketball story since she started out by mentioning arena football and then the XFL.  In David Cay Johnston's book The Making of Donald Trump a big section is about Trump owning a team - the New Jersey Generals - in the start-up USFL back in the 80's and how he managed to make money when everybody else lost money.  I was confusing the XFL with the USFL.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

An update on Qatar and the DC Metro.  The deal between Metro and Qatar is off!  Honestly, you can't make this stuff up.

Quote

I was confusing the XFL with the USFL.

Me too. I thought the point of the story at first was Trump and the USFL.  Heh, sometimes it takes awhile to figure out the point of Rachel's top story. 

Share this post


Link to post

6 hours ago, Ohwell said:

Every time I hear someone mispronounce that word, my left eye twitches.

Like Lawrence, I love Avenatti but I do wish he'd take a media break.

I was thinking that too.  But I luv watching Avenatti snickering about being proven right.  Er, his looks are irrelevant to me.  Um, that's my story & I'm sticking to it . . .

So LOD is too groupie with him & Rach has seriously turned on a hate/sneer tone on him.  Isn't there something in between?  

C'mon Rach, ease up on, Avenatti.  Hasn't pretty much everything he's said so far about Trump & Cohen & Rudy (& anyone related to that motley crew) been confirmed to be right?  Rach's accusations of him being lurid & provocative, as well as her now predictable stink-eye at the very mention of his name, is getting a bit much.

Doesn't Rach look like she can't stand LOD bringing his name up to her yet again in the signoff?

Edited by ScoobieDoobs
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I think Rachel is trying to go against the tide of everyone else "falling in love" with Avenatti, so she goes overboard in the opposite direction.  Methinks she doth protest too much.

Share this post


Link to post

Yup, and I think Rach holds back a lot of what she really thinks.  Seriously, in those signoffs, doesn't she look like she wants to say to LOD -- OMG, you really are not gonna have that publicity hound on again, are you?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

  

Oh Rach, please stop being distracted by (& just forget about) your intense dislike for Avenatti & go with the dot-connecting, will ya?  Sheesh, Avenatti, you really do need to take a break & shut your yap for a bit.

 

 

If Avenatti hadn't tweeted that photo of the Qatar official going to a meeting at trump Tower nobody, including Rachel, would be talking about the half billion dollar bribe Qatar gave trump through Indonesia.

Why should he shut up? He's advancing the story of incredible corruption by this administration, and doing it in a way (drip drip drip) that keeps the media focused on this corruption. He gives me hope, and there has been damn little of that since Nov 9, 2016.

One of the things I like most about Rachel is how she treats her guests with respect, no matter how despicable they are. She doesn't shout over them, constantly interrupt, or threaten to cut off their microphones. So the way she reacts to the mere mention of Avenatti's name borders on unprofessional, IMO. He may have a huge ego, but he's one of the good guys.

Edited by SpiritSong · Reason: missed a word, typing too fast.
  • Like 17

Share this post


Link to post

While talking to Ronan Farrow about his report on the missing SARS, she referred to Avenatti as "that attorney who released the document" rather than by name. She really does hate him!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Is it possible that Rachel doesn't recognize the provenance of the moniker Crossfire Hurricane? Maybe the FBI are just  Rolling Stones fans, not drama queens.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post

26 minutes ago, attica said:

Is it possible that Rachel doesn't recognize the provenance of the moniker Crossfire Hurricane? Maybe the FBI are just  Rolling Stones fans, not drama queens.

Eek, WTF, Rach, could you be anymore clueless about this reference?  Ari Melber was all over this.  Guess she doesn't watch him.

One thing that really bugged me was how she kept saying the disclosure report said Trump made the payment to Cohen for the Stormy hush money.  Uh, no, Rachel, get this one correct & straight, please.  That was not spelled out directly in the disclosure form.  CNN got this right, so you need to also, Rach.

OK, the Ronan story left me confused.  Anyone else?   So there's 2 SAR's missing.  So the fuck what?  No reason to be all smiles with Ronan & shake his hand so hard for this supposed "scoop". Hey, Rachel, if there are heroes connected with the Cohen leak, then it would be Avenatti.  We wouldn't know anything about the millions Cohen got paid off for, if not for Avenatti -- uh, NOT Ronan!  Oh, but I forgot, Rachel, you hate Avenatti's guts & only refer to him as "that lawyer".

And nothing about Pruitt getting grilled this morning?  Really, Rach?  Man, she does need a few days (and hopefully not more) to get back in the groove after those fishing trips, eh?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

And nothing about Pruitt getting grilled this morning?  Really, Rach?  Man, she does need a few days (and hopefully not more) to get back in the groove after those fishing trips, eh?

Eh, I'll give her a pass on not covering the Pruitt hearing. 10 different kinds of shit hit the fan today and you can only fit so much into 45 minutes on air.

Plus, it's pretty clear at this point that Pruitt could stomp a box of puppies to death on live tv and trump still wouldn't get rid of him. Wish I was wrong about that.

Ronan Farrow is a pretty good journalist. I hope NBC is still kicking themselves for quashing his Weinstein story. That really made them look BAD.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

OK, the Ronan story left me confused.  Anyone else?   So there's 2 SAR's missing.  So the fuck what?

They are SARs that refer to Cohen transactions that add up to $3M.  And they are most definitely absolutely hell no NOT supposed to missing from that Treasury database, which is supposed to be THE permanent record of all SARs filed.  Unless, of course, they were pulled by Mueller or the FBI.  But under no other circumstances are they supposed to be deleted.  It's a big deal.  So why are they missing?  Will others go missing, or have they already?  What specifically is in those Cohen related SARs?  Where did the money from the flagged suspicious transactions go and where did it come from? Foreign bribes?   The SAR that does exist, which references the two SARs that are missing,, is what was given to Avenatti who told us about Cohen soliciting or receiving bribes from AT&T, Novartis, and that US-Russian company.  That SAR was given to Avenatti by the same guy who Ronan interviewed.  He was alarmed by the missing SARs and believes he is acting as a whistleblower.  He wanted to explain that to Ronan so his side of the story cold come out because the administration is already going on about how did Avenatti get the info on Cohen.

Rachel needs to get over herself with respect to Avenatti. 

Edited by izabella
  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post

Ronan's SAR's story only annoys me cuz it's yet something else that sounds suspicious & awful, but could likely go nowhere.  But I really hope this is an indication of the direction Ronan is going in.  We need you, Ronan!

And I was annoyed Rachel didn't even attempt to ask what Ronan (or his source) thought of er, "that lawyer" (translation from Rachel-speak -- Avenatti) actually publicly leaking the Cohen payoffs.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, izabella said:

Unless, of course, they were pulled by Mueller or the FBI.  But under no other circumstances are they supposed to be deleted.  It's a big deal. 

What I was getting from Rach's interview and others is that there IS no reason to pull those documents and they should NOT be pulled. They are evidence and removing them interrupts the chain of evidence in a federal court case. If Mueller wanted those documents for his investigation, he would make a copy of them, as would any other agency using those docs for an investigation. A ex-Treasury guest on Chris Hayes' show said he wasn't aware of a mechanism to even remove the docs, so it is a big deal not only that the docs were removed but how they were removed.

Rachel is a very methodical, orderly, step-by-step reporter, who does things for a reason with a very defined end point in sight (for her!). I think her disdain for "that lawyer" is because she doesn't like how he is stepping outside his defined role as Stormy's lawyer, getting her out of the NDA. He is shotgun-shooting previously undisclosed evidence of unethical and criminal activity of Trump and Company out into the media and playing peek-a-boo with it. Then he smiles that pretty smile and goes on another show and gets petted by another host. You can tell Rachel really likes Ronan and his quiet, intense, non-performance art type of reporting.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Actually it seems like these being "missing" isn't some huge smoking gun. In fact today nost people are saying the it's probably due to Mueller or SDNY. 

Even last night Ronan pointed out that this could be Mueller and doesn't necessarily mean somehow nefarious is going on with those reports. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Galloway Cave said:

I think her disdain for "that lawyer" is because she doesn't like how he is stepping outside his defined role as Stormy's lawyer, getting her out of the NDA.

I think you're right about why she feels that way about Avenatti.  However, I don't see how it's any of her business if he's stepping "outside his defined role."

I find Ronan rather smarmy and, frankly, creepy. 

Edited by Ohwell
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

And I was annoyed Rachel didn't even attempt to ask what Ronan (or his source) thought of er, "that lawyer" (translation from Rachel-speak -- Avenatti) actually publicly leaking the Cohen payoffs.

Well, getting it public was the whole point of the leak. The whistle-blower wanted the info from the SAR out in the news, so that s/he could say, "Look at how much suspicious activity is in this report. There are two more SARS on Cohen that are now missing, and these never go missing!" It was to pull the fire alarm and get everyone's attention. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Wow, Rach, great show tonite -- you are back on your game!  Rachel's start-off on slimeball Jared & his Qatar pay-to-play/quid-pro-quo bullshit was awesome.  If you didn't see it -- it's a must watch!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

Rachel's start-off on slimeball Jared & his Qatar pay-to-play/quid-pro-quo bullshit was awesome. 

I know the answer but seriously, how is he not in jail yet.    And we have an update on the DC/Qatar relationship.  Qatar funneled the money through the DowntownDC Business Improvement District and they passed the money to Metro.  And..then the Caps game didn't go into overtime.  So, the City of Washington DC and Metro sold its soul to Qatar for nothing.  The only way that could have gotten more screwed up if Jared was involved somehow. 

Just now, M. Darcy said:

 

Edited by M. Darcy

Share this post


Link to post

I love a good Nixon story, and tonight's A block was a great Nixon story! Very relevant. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks -- was not sure I had time to watch, but this will make me catch the second airing!

ETA:  John Dean:  "Yes, there is an enemies list and no, you do not have it in your documents because it did not fit the description of the materials requested.  Would you like a copy of this list?"  Why yes, yes, indeed we would, said Congress.  (I don't believe I ever saw this previously.  I have to keep reminding myself that Nixon himself asked to have his office meetings taped.  Hard to believe. ) 

22 minutes ago, ahisma said:

I love a good Nixon story, and tonight's A block was a great Nixon story! Very relevant. 

Edited by jjj
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, jjj said:

ETA:  John Dean:  "Yes, there is an enemies list and no, you do not have it in your documents because it did not fit the description of the materials requested.  Would you like a copy of this list?"  Why yes, yes, indeed we would, said Congress.  (I don't believe I ever saw this previously.  I have to keep reminding myself that Nixon himself asked to have his office meetings taped.  Hard to believe. ) 

It was a yuuuuge deal when the enemies list was made public.  It was considered a badge of honor to be on that list, and yet, it was also if one had been slimed.  IIRC, even people like Paul Newman made the enemies list.  Nowadays, if there was a list and someone offered to make it available to Congress, I'm not convinced Congress would say yes.  I love when Rachel shows old footage, especially footage I remember from the original airings.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Minor quibble and maybe its just me - was disappointed that Rachael (correctly) called out a racial slur (in the Nixon tapes story), and then proceeded to say the slur  out loud when reading the transcript (starts with w and rhymes with setback).  I probably wouldn't say anything - but then she twice refused to say 'bitch' out loud when reading the same transcript.   

Otherwise - that segment was off - the - chain.  So fascinating.  

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Xena said:

Minor quibble and maybe its just me - was disappointed that Rachael (correctly) called out a racial slur (in the Nixon tapes story), and then proceeded to say the slur  out loud when reading the transcript (starts with w and rhymes with setback).  I probably wouldn't say anything - but then she twice refused to say 'bitch' out loud when reading the same transcript.   

Otherwise - that segment was off - the - chain.  So fascinating.  

If they are reading direct quotes, I think it's fine to say the slur or profanity. 

MSNBC bugs me with their coy refusal to say words like bitch or bastard or any other expletive, especially when they are quoting someone. Do they really think young children are watching their programming and will be scarred for life if they hear a curse word? It's insulting to the adults who do watch.

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, SpiritSong said:
3 hours ago, Xena said:

Minor quibble and maybe its just me - was disappointed that Rachael (correctly) called out a racial slur (in the Nixon tapes story), and then proceeded to say the slur  out loud when reading the transcript (starts with w and rhymes with setback).  I probably wouldn't say anything - but then she twice refused to say 'bitch' out loud when reading the same transcript.   

Otherwise - that segment was off - the - chain.  So fascinating.  

If they are reading direct quotes, I think it's fine to say the slur or profanity. 

 

 

My point was that her refusal to say 'bitch', along w/ her willingness to say 'wetback', was particularly glaring (why not say both?  If you can say wetback you can CERTAINLY say bitch).  I love Rachael but that grated.  

Edited by Xena
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Xena said:

 

My point was that her refusal to say 'bitch', along w/ her willingness to say 'wetback', was particularly glaring (why not say both?  If you can say wetback you can CERTAINLY say bitch).  I love Rachael but that grated.  

Yeah, I get that and it's a good point. Profanity doesn't bother me nearly as much as racial or ethnic slurs, but if you're quoting someone, just read what they said. It bugs me to hear grown ass adults say bleep instead of the word shit. As in shithole countries. 

Rachel's show is on MSNBC, not Nickelodeon for Chrissake.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, SpiritSong said:

Yeah, I get that

Sorry SpiritSong I might have read your initial response incorrectly; I was reading here while also watching a Devin Nunes interview and it likely caused the wiring in my brain to go wonky, as listening to him often does.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, Xena said:

Sorry SpiritSong I might have read your initial response incorrectly; I was reading here while also watching a Devin Nunes interview and it likely caused the wiring in my brain to go wonky, as listening to him often does.

No worries.  You're a better person than I am. I mute nearly all the traitors when they appear on tv these days. I can feel my brain cells dying with every word, I mean lie, that they utter.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size