All Episodes Talk: TRMS 2019 Season

[Hyacinth B]

On 10/3/2019 at 10:30 AM, car54 said:

Rachel is taking great pleasure in saying "The President is going to be impeached" as often as she can.    I was thinking of starting a drinking game every time she said it but I'd have passed out.  

She deserves it--with all the bad news she has to deliver every day.

Trevor Noah has been including "... and President Trump is being impeached" to his list of the day's news headlines almost every day on his show, and it always gets an ecstatic reaction from the audience. Maybe Rachel has the same gut reaction - saying it just makes her feel good. It makes ME feel good too, so Rachel can say it as often as she likes.

[freddi]

I was pleased and surprised to hear Rachel say she would be hosting her show from the West Coast next week (Monday in L.A.).  This is a grueling schedule, on top of the energy-suck of being injured and on crutches.  I am someone who gripes when she is not on the air -- not because it is not Rachel, but because no one will admit ahead of time that she has time off.  (Well, I do gripe about some of the guest hosts.)  But I want her to have time to recharge!  And now heal!  

I assume that handoff on Friday was a setup, arranged in advance (Lawrence:  "Hey, Rachel, want to come to my studio to talk about your book?"  Rachel:  "Sure thing, let me limp across the hall!") -- but it was fun to see how intrigued she was at listening to her own voice at 1.25/2.00 x normal speed.   

Edited October 6, 2019 by freddi

[suomi]

If anyone is interested, my DISH guide indicates that TRMS is airing a Special Report tonight which is captioned as "New." It's listed at 8 pm Mountain Time which would be 10 pm Eastern, 9 pm Central and 7 pm Pacific. 

[meowmommy]

26 minutes ago, suomi said:

If anyone is interested, my DISH guide indicates that TRMS is airing a Special Report tonight which is captioned as "New." It's listed at 8 pm Mountain Time which would be 10 pm Eastern, 9 pm Central and 7 pm Pacific. 

My cable guide says it aired 11/18/18, and the blurb says, "Rachel Maddow tells a story of political intrigue involving Richard Nixon's scheme to win the White House..."

[suomi]

26 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

My cable guide says it aired 11/18/18, and the blurb says, "Rachel Maddow tells a story of political intrigue involving Richard Nixon's scheme to win the White House..."

Because it follows a "New" special called Trump & Ukraine: Impeachment Crisis, I believed it. Bastards! Good to know, thank you.

[car54]

Aren't Rachel's parents in CA?   I don't know her schedule for appearances but I hope she gets some time with them and that they can help her with getting around.   Travel is hard enough without a messed up leg.

I was very confused about the special Sunday show.   I watch via Hulu and they didn't even have it on their channel guide, they said it was Dateline.

[freddi]

Her last guest tonight, Pete McGurk, had real insight into the situation in Syria -- I don't think I have seen him previously, but this was the perfect moment to introduce him.  I wish TRMS would issue a list of references to articles cited by Rachel in each show.   And I don't think the word "corruption" is being co-opted, but she has been right about things like this.

4 hours ago, car54 said:

Aren't Rachel's parents in CA?   I don't know her schedule for appearances but I hope she gets some time with them and that they can help her with getting around.   Travel is hard enough without a messed up leg.

Her father is a longtime employee of various enterprises in the Bay Area (good jobs; he is an attorney; I don't mean to make it sound like he is bouncing around) -- and I had not realized he also attended Stanford!  Yes, I hope she gets a few days to be herself and rest.  

Edited October 8, 2019 by freddi

[The Solution]

1 hour ago, freddi said:

Her last guest tonight, Pete (Mc???) had real insight into the situation in Syria -- I don't think I have seen him previously, but this was the perfect moment to introduce him. 

When she read his tweet and auto-corrected "With who?" to "With whom?", I fell in love with her all over again.

[ahisma]

4 hours ago, freddi said:

And I don't think the word "corruption" is being co-opted, but she has been right about things like this.

Trump took “fake news” and made it seem the opposite, and then quickly overused it to the point where it became meaningless and annoying. I thought it was a good warning by Rachel that he is doing exactly the same with “corruption”—using it to refer to anti-corruption actions. I don’t doubt that he will  overuse it until we want to jab knitting needles into our ears rather than hear it one more time. 

[car54]

I've been calling it hypnosis--Trump will pick a word or phrase and use it over and over until his followers do the same--Fake News is now morphing to Enemies of the People.   No Collusion is another.   Since they announced the Impeachment Inquiry, I feel like the GOP talking points that most are following contain them.

[tres bien]

I still think "corruption" being said over and over again is funny considering the source.

[freddi]

What?!?  There was a Trump campaign ad right before the McQuade segment.  What a waste of an ad buy.  I thought at first it was going to segue into a Rachel segment, as part of the show (and wondered why she was giving him time).  That was just weird.  

[meowmommy]

2 hours ago, freddi said:

What?!?  There was a Trump campaign ad right before the McQuade segment.  What a waste of an ad buy.  I thought at first it was going to segue into a Rachel segment, as part of the show (and wondered why she was giving him time).  That was just weird.  

Trying to imagine the Venn diagram showing the overlap between 45 voters and Rachel fans.  World's tiniest overlap, methinks.  

Just glad to see Barb McQuade.  I've been wondering where the legal dream team has been, other than on everyone else's show.  

[possibilities]

I was really glad she talked about Iran-Contra tonight. It's been bothering me for a long time, how hardly anyone remembers it or knows what it was. We didn't learn from that, and I think that's why we're where we are now.

[Quilt Fairy]

5 hours ago, freddi said:

What?!?  There was a Trump campaign ad right before the McQuade segment.  What a waste of an ad buy.  I thought at first it was going to segue into a Rachel segment, as part of the show (and wondered why she was giving him time).  That was just weird.  

When that first came on, I thought it was a parody of some kind.  I couldn't believe it was a legitimate Trump campaign ad.

[tessaray]

Just a friendly note going forward... ads shown during the show are off-topic unless/until Rachel (or any guest host) brings them up.  It's fine to take them to the small talk area, though.  

[tres bien]

By the time Rachel got to the punchline of what started out as "why I love Rex Tillerson " I was nauseous.  

This crazy rollercoaster ride is out of control. 

[freddi]

I thought Rachel might start her show in the dark, to make the point about the blackouts in California -- but she said she was still in L.A.  And that Friday's show would be from Seattle.  I wish I had time to stalk the NBC affiliate.  I have to admit that they have done a smooth job in broadcasting from guest studios -- and boy, am I glad they made the effort this week.  

ETA:  Rewatching the show:  This was an exceptionally good show.  Not just the news, but Rachel being indignant while not sputtering:  "There was a paper trail.  You idiots."  Most sentences ended in periods, where many of us would have gone full-on exclamation points!!! (Me:  "You IDIOTS!!!"  Thank goodness!!!")  And it was terrific that she brought in the reporter from the Daily Beast who noted those large illegal contributions from a non-existent company a year ago.  I had not seen him or his work at all earlier today.  On a trivial note:  those mug shots she showed were really thuggy.  I saw a court drawing, and they were getting onto first class in t-shirts.  Not tailored casual sports shirts, but t-shirts.  I've traveled first class, and most travelers try a little harder.  

Edited October 11, 2019 by freddi

[freddi]

I'm guessing everyone waiting for Rachel at the lecture hall downtown in Seattle (near the news station) is watching the show tonight (her lecture is an hour after the show).  What a day to see Rachel live!  (Ari, seriously, it's time to let Rachel hop to the waiting car.)  

She really has earned a weekend, plus more.  (Would take you trout fishing, Rachel!)

"The ones you push out, they become witnesses."  I was thinking something similar today -- that you have colleagues, and then something shifts or clicks, and all those colleagues are now witnesses.  And maybe you are, also.  

[meowmommy]

I was getting dizzy watching them show the same clip of the ambassador on what felt like an infinite loop.

On 10/10/2019 at 7:29 PM, freddi said:

I have to admit that they have done a smooth job in broadcasting from guest studios -- and boy, am I glad they made the effort this week.  

Just curious when a network show's host takes over your local news station--does the studio get pressed into producing the show, or does the host take their production team with them?  [Clearly at least the makeup team is different, as Rachel's makeup in LA was different from NY which is different tonight from Seattle.]

[freddi]

10 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

I was getting dizzy watching them show the same clip of the ambassador on what felt like an infinite loop.

Just curious when a network show's host takes over your local news station--does the studio get pressed into producing the show, or does the host take their production team with them?  [Clearly at least the makeup team is different, as Rachel's makeup in LA was different from NY which is different tonight from Seattle.]

Oh, I am sure a good amount of staff come with Rachel to the other locations -- I bet the makeup person/people work on various shows, so they are less available.  She looked very peachy this evening, and I thought it was a good shade on her!  There is no way her show could be produced without her own team, who did a great job adapting to the L.A. and Seattle studios.

I have more to say about that looping clip of the ambassador, but will say it over the weekend.  That was quite a power walk she provided.  Righteousness in a tailored black suit and unblinking focus.   

[ahisma]

Both her guests brought the funny tonight, with “under the tweet of Damocles “ and “in the immortal words of Twisted Sister”! 

And in serious news, I’m so glad Rachel read Ambassador Yavonavich’s statement. I’d love to know how the R members of the committee comported themselves during her testimony. I hope her words sank in to at least to some of them.

[meowmommy]

47 minutes ago, ahisma said:

And in serious news, I’m so glad Rachel read Ambassador Yavonavich’s statement. I’d love to know how the R members of the committee comported themselves during her testimony.

I wasn't glad, only because I'd already read the statement myself, but I understand many of Rachel's viewers would not have had a chance to do so.  And of course, the ambassador testified for another eight or nine hours, so she has to have unloaded a lot more we don't even know about yet.

But I agree completely that I'd love to know if the minority members of the committees behave in private like the snapping, yappy dogs that they do in public hearings.

[IrishPirate]

"For which he is being impeached" on Friday's show---one part of me wants to rewatch the episode and count how many times Rachel said the phrase. Another part wants a tally of folks who turned it into a drinking game. In the end, I can't rewatch. I don't drink and I'm not going to ruin my family member's 30 years of sobriety by starting. Because I would insist on a companion to watch with me.

[meowmommy]

1 hour ago, IrishPirate said:

"For which he is being impeached" on Friday's show---one part of me wants to rewatch the episode and count how many times Rachel said the phrase.

It's her new mantra, and if for some reason he doesn't get impeached, she's going to be drawn, disemboweled, and quartered.

[The Solution]

11 hours ago, ahisma said:

Both her guests brought the funny tonight, with “under the tweet of Damocles “ and “in the immortal words of Twisted Sister”! 

And in serious news, I’m so glad Rachel read Ambassador Yavonavich’s statement. I’d love to know how the R members of the committee comported themselves during her testimony. I hope her words sank in to at least to some of them.

Not to mention the fact that she led into the reading of that statement by calling it "baller."

[Quilt Fairy]

1 hour ago, The Solution said:

Not to mention the fact that she led into the reading of that statement by calling it "baller."

That bothered me so much!  A Rhodes scholar can't come up with a better synonym for "gutsy" than "baller"?  

22 hours ago, freddi said:

That was quite a power walk she provided.  Righteousness in a tailored black suit and unblinking focus.  

And in heels!

[Medicine Crow]

32 minutes ago, Quilt Fairy said:

That bothered me so much!  A Rhodes scholar can't come up with a better synonym for "gutsy" than "baller"?  

And in heels!

I would have said "ballsy"!!!

[Hooper]

I would have said "ovarian".

[freddi]

Huh, Rachel changed the "A" block on the repeat.  They must have recorded a new segment to avoid Rachel providing the wrong information (but as reported in the WSJ and by her in the first hour) that Lev and Igor were on the loose, on bond -- thereby avoiding public consternation?  And just to get it right.  

And she knocked off the snarky comments about the mug shots of Lev and Igor, and her subsequent sarcastic reference to them as *Mr*. Parnas and *Mr.* Fruman.  I have to admit that I had tuned in again just to enjoy the snark, while I was working and realized I had not heard those phrases -- then realized that her original opening was gone.  Now I have to watch the end to see if she changes the correction at the end -- I assume so, but it would screw up the handoff to Lawrence.  

This is rare.  I think there have been one or two times I remember when she re-recorded a block.  

ETA: Yup, she changed her final minute completely, and had no handoff to Lawrence. It looks like they replaced her her original correction with the originally prepared ending, the schedule of testimony coming up.  And then Lawrence got a spinning chyron of “BREAKING NEWS!” to distract us.  They just cut his minute of Rachel chat, then his show went forward. 

Edited October 15, 2019 by freddi

[ahisma]

So that’s why the podcast reappeared in my feed, after I already listened to it. 

[meowmommy]

Ugh.  This is a day of so much news, I couldn't imagine how Rachel could do justice to it all, and she picks this day to bring back Andrew Yang, novelty candidate, for The Interview.  I shut it off and switched to football.  Someone will probably tell me I missed a great interview, but I don't care.

[freddi]

29 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

Ugh.  This is a day of so much news, I couldn't imagine how Rachel could do justice to it all, and she picks this day to bring back Andrew Yang, novelty candidate, for The Interview.  I shut it off and switched to football.  Someone will probably tell me I missed a great interview, but I don't care.

No, you made a wise choice.  There was one moment when she was pressing him for an example (was it about interference with elections?) after he made a broad generalization, and it was so clear he had no idea what he was talking about.  She pushed him to the point of making it clear that he had no answer, then moved on.  I'm glad she pushed on this.  It reminded me of the Katie Couric interview with Palin, when Couric asked her what she read:  "Oh, many things."  "Like what?"  "Oh, there are too many to single out one." Etc.  I don't know anything about Yang, but if Rachel is determined to have each candidate on her show, this one should have had three minutes, then a note from our sponsor.  

[ScoobieDoobs]

Aw, c'mon Rach. admit it, you really showed that nauseating smiling vid of Rick Perry so all your viewers would be punching that smuggy, useless hack right smack in the nose thru their TV's (or computers or phones)  at the same moment, didn't you?

Andrew Yang?  He's such a nice guy, he was the perfect guest interview.  Did they get into much substantial?  Not so much, but a bit of foreign policy cuz . . . well, how can anyone avoid discussing that?  Yang is a very bright guy.  Look, he doesn't seem overly impressed with himself (cough, cough, Harris), and I understand what he says when he speaks (unlike Booker, who I never know what he says) and he doesn't scream & throw a bazillion pie-in-the-sky-ideas out (er, Bernie & Warren).  He's not overly stiff like Mayor Pete & he does seem fresh, clearly a sharp contrast to Biden, who's feeling stale.

I suspect Rach knows that Yang has not gotten a fair amount of exposure in the debates.  Did I get much from this interview?  Nah, but I liked him & I'd like to hear more from him, particularly because I'm pretty meh on all the top polling candidates presently.  Ask him back, Rach -- and on a shitty news day like today!

[ahisma]

I’m really glad Rachel opened with laudatory words for Rep. Elijah Cummings. His death gutted me and unfortunately there are so many other headlines today.

Plus it was the first I’d heard that his last act was signing subpoenas for the cretins behind trying to deport sick kids. Damn right! He leaves a tremendous absence in his passing. 

[M. Darcy]

Uck about Yang.  I just switched the channel during his interview and switched back when it was over. 

[roughing it]

11 hours ago, meowmommy said:

bring back Andrew Yang, novelty candidate, for The Interview.  I shut it off and switched to football. 

As a Broncos fan, I think I would have rather watched the interview with Andrew Yang...sigh

[tres bien]

I switched to Chris Cuomo and interestingly he gave Rachel a shout out!

He interviewed the lawyer/author she had on Wednesday's show. (can't remember his name )

[Sesquipedalia]

Someone on Twitter said Yang sounded like a college freshman at his poli sci professor’s office hours, and I thought that was the perfect description of the interview.

[meowmommy]

I could gladly have gone on with the rest of my life not having seen pictures of someone eaten up by bedbugs.

[Haleth]

On 10/18/2019 at 1:11 AM, freddi said:

There was one moment when she was pressing him for an example (was it about interference with elections?) after he made a broad generalization, and it was so clear he had no idea what he was talking about.  She pushed him to the point of making it clear that he had no answer, then moved on.  I'm glad she pushed on this.  It reminded me of the Katie Couric interview with Palin, when Couric asked her what she read:  "Oh, many things."  "Like what?"  "Oh, there are too many to single out one." Etc.  I don't know anything about Yang, but if Rachel is determined to have each candidate on her show, this one should have had three minutes, then a note from our sponsor.  

It was about his assertion during the debate that the US has interfered in other elections.  Rachel asked which elections and he hemmed and hawed and said "lots of them" or something to that effect.  She pushed him to name an example and he could not come up with a single instance.  Yang may be a smart guy, but if he's going to make provocative claims he needs to be ready to back them up.

[freddi]

On 10/18/2019 at 6:27 PM, Sesquipedalia said:

Someone on Twitter said Yang sounded like a college freshman at his poli sci professor’s office hours, and I thought that was the perfect description of the interview.

That is it:  perfect description.  I was surprised that Rachel pushed him on the answer he did not have, when it was apparent immediately he had no specifics to back up his claim.  I'm not saying he was wrong -- but you have to provide the details if you are talking to Rachel.

I just found a legitimate/authorized recording (audio, I think) of her talk in Seattle, which I will post over in the Rachel thread.  

Edited October 20, 2019 by freddi

[Quilt Fairy]

On 10/19/2019 at 12:19 AM, meowmommy said:

I could gladly have gone on with the rest of my life not having seen pictures of someone eaten up by bedbugs.

Trust me, you particularly do not want to see it while lying in bed in a hotel room, as I did.

[Hanahope]

I appreciate Rachel's program regarding the continued spurlious "investigation" into Hillary's e-mails, and how the media bought into all that in 2016, which has been proven to be an absolute nothingburger.

[freddi]

Rachel:  All the people associated with Giuliani are "modeling the latest fashions in GPS ankle bracelets" and "looking forward to a career as a distiller of prison wine, made from toilet water, old fruit, and sugar packets".  Holy cow, what an opening segment.  Rachel should give the opening statement at the Senate trial.  

Edited October 23, 2019 by freddi

[Sesquipedalia]

I was totally here for Rachel's take-down of the "but her emails"-obsessed media. 

[Morrigan2575]

Rachel kind of scared me tonight. This I going to get very bad before it's over.

[meowmommy]

2 hours ago, Morrigan2575 said:

Rachel kind of scared me tonight. This I going to get very bad before it's over.

Me too.  And I was desperately hoping Chuck! would make it all better, but he seemed just as confused and distressed by what he's seeing and hearing.  However, I was vastly heartened by Congressman Maloney's optimism, and glad that Rachel gave him a long time to talk.

[Happiest for me was hearing that Amy Klobuchar just qualified for the next debate.  I had been worried about that.]

Is this the first time Rachel's ever mentioned her crosstown rival ("Hannityville")?

[ScoobieDoobs]

OK, Rach, reign in the dramatics about the Justice Dept. investigating itself on the Russia probe.  As Chuck said, it’s likely to go nowhere cuz (like Hillary’s emails) there’s nothing criminal there.  Way too much other important stuff to talk about, Rach than to get sidetracked with this.  And please start going after Betsy DeVos, will ya, Rach?

[ScoobieDoobs]

Uh, I was kinda baffled by this interview with Ronan.  Well, I wasn’t at all baffled by Ronan.  He was extremely serious (and clearly & rightfully angry) & very straightforward & consistent in his accusations against NBC.  I was baffled by Rachel.  

Sounds like Rachel wants to believe her employer is doing the right thing — but are they?  Doesn’t seem like it.  Something doesn’t seem right about why Ronan’s Weinstein story didn’t run on NBC.  And NBC’s response to Ronan’s accusations concerning the NBC top brass & how they handled the Matt Lauer accusers sounds fishy.

So are NBC’s top executives lying to Rach & the rest of their employees & the rest of the world?  How come they let Rach go ahead with this interview?  Were they using Rach to make themselves appear more transparent.  Ugh, I’d hate it if Rach was being used this way.  Actually, it makes me really queasy.  Too bad, cuz the first part of the show was finally some good news about the court ruling in favor of Dems.