All Episodes Talk: TRMS 2019 Season

[BabyVegas]

1 hour ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

How come they let Rach go ahead with this interview?

I've always been curious how much independence Rachel's show has from the main NBC News organization. It seems like because Rachel's MO is a little bit more heads-down than some of the other news personalities, she stayed out of NBC's way and NBC stayed out of hers. The way I see it, there's probably two options: (1) NBC didn't interfere with this reporting for the reason you worry about - they're using Rachel's willingness to publicly believe NBC as a credibility builder or (2) their calculus said this was a no-win situation and trying to stop Rachel from talking about it would have just given more credence to Ronan's reporting of interference. Either way, I'm not inclined to be particularly charitable towards NBC management on this issue.

My read on her during this interview was that she wanted to believe what NBC was saying, but didn't entirely. Especially when she was talking about the consternation in the building about NBC killing the story. In combination with the accusations in Catch and Kill about Andy Lack having had knowledge of Lauer's behavior as far back as 2014, I wonder if there's some level of her processing what might feel like a failure to see what was going at her own employer.

Edited October 26, 2019 by BabyVegas

[freddi]

I really am getting overly paranoid.  As Rachel was telling the Ronan Farrow/NBC story and its many angles, I figured she was teeing it up for an interview with him.  But then it went on, and she became more accusatory about the behavior of NBC, in a way I found extraordinary for a lead anchor on MSNBC.  The more she went on, the more I was holding my breath, because that level of accusation had to end either with "and here's Ronan" or her on-air resignation, a la Shep Smith.  I cannot express how glad I was to hear her introduce his segment.   

[ScoobieDoobs]

It sure was a looong intro to get to the Ronan interview.  But that interview left too many unanswered questions to be in any way effective.  So why have Ronan there at all?  His accusations against NBC all sound true to me.  Rachel seemed to coming from a place of — well, NBC execs are trying to be upfront & transparent.  Really?  Not buying it.

Look, this an easy situation to sum up.  It’s not confusing to me in the least.  Either Ronan’s book is full of lies or NBC execs are covering their butts.  Not difficult to discern which one of these is happening here, but Rach sure seems to be in a quandary of which to believe.  May be best to leave it to others to interview Ronan, Rach . . .

But the NY Times was interested-

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/25/business/rachel-maddow-ronan-farrow-nbc.html?action=click&module=Latest&pgtype=Homepage

Edited October 26, 2019 by ScoobieDoobs

[possibilities]

I think it definitely looked like Rachel was eager to believe her bosses and doubt Farrow's account. But I also think it's possible she played it that way in order to set him up to refute that point of view. It takes an iron stomach to go after your bosses directly. I think it was pretty clear who was telling the truth and who was engaged in a cover up.

Chris Hayes also addressed this issue on his show (not today), and he was much more direct, but Rachel has a socially anxious persona, and she often approaches interviews in this way that puts her guests above her, like they're the experts and she's the person who might not understand. What she did with Farrow was very on brand for her. But it's also the kind of thing that could tank her career. Even if her ratings are great, there's only so much challenge TPTB will tolerate.

Some of the other MSNBC shows didn't mention this issue at all, and I'm sure it's not because they don't know or care about it.

[Sharpie66]

I think that TPTB at NBC are aware of how bad they are portrayed in Farrow’s book, and the fact that he has multiple sources and other reporters’ work, as well as that Pulitzer Prize, behind him means that he has more clout at this point. Cynical me thinks that this is the kind of thing that gets execs to shore up their Me-Too support by getting an all-female moderator panel in the next debate.

[meowmommy]

6 hours ago, possibilities said:

Chris Hayes also addressed this issue on his show (not today), and he was much more direct, but Rachel has a socially anxious persona, and she often approaches interviews in this way that puts her guests above her, like they're the experts and she's the person who might not understand.

NY Times reported on Rachel's reporting today.  Chris got a mention, but undoubtedly NYT took notice now because Rachel is a much bigger network star and she got the interview. 

Quote

Ms. Maddow — whose program is MSNBC’s No. 1 ratings draw — represents the biggest name in the NBC family to express misgivings over the network’s handling of Mr. Farrow’s reporting. Her on-air statements on Friday were likely to increase pressure on the NBC News leadership team, including the chairman, Andrew Lack, and the news division president, Noah Oppenheim

[M. Darcy]

I think the way she did it showed exactly why NBC is full of shit.  I thought by giving their version first, and then showing Rowan’s reporting, it emphasized all the holes in what NBC is saying. 

[Quilt Fairy]

16 hours ago, freddi said:

The more she went on, the more I was holding my breath, because that level of accusation had to end either with "and here's Ronan" or her on-air resignation, a la Shep Smith.  I cannot express how glad I was to hear her introduce his segment.   

That's where I thought it was leading as well. 

[freddi]

2 hours ago, Quilt Fairy said:

That's where I thought it was leading as well. 

Okay, so I was not totally crazy to think this.  Or at least, I had company.

One scene in today's NY Times article was about Farrow's appearance on her show in 2017, when his New Yorker piece came out, and she asked him why it had not been reported through NBC.  The article quotes Farrow as saying that the moment Rachel's show ended, the MSNBC president got on the phone with Rachel, with her "pacing up and down the set, phone glued to her ear", while Farrow could hear his raised voice.  (I am guessing this is also described in his new book.)  So last night, the heat of that call had to be on her mind.  I had never heard about that phone call previously.  

Edited October 26, 2019 by freddi

[ahisma]

4 hours ago, freddi said:

Farrow's appearance on her show in 2017, when his New Yorker piece came out, and she asked him why it had not been reported through NBC. 

I remember this and I remember her being upset then (as a journalist—and also because of the social import of the story?) that NBC had “let go” of the story. Her description Friday of the impact on NBC rank-and-file of the subsequent MeToo issues within the network, and then the anger over the revelations in Ronan’s book rings very honest.

I hadn’t heard that about the phone call, either. But now there’s a full, documented book out and Ronan on every other media outlet describing NBC head honchos’ activities. And Rachel is their top ratings draw. What can they do to her now? The horses are well out of the barn. 

It sounded very cathartic for her to be able to tell the world what it felt like for their own bosses to 1) be such sleazeballs and 2) so damaging to journalism. I also appreciated that Ronan appreciated all the people he worked with except said bosses.

[Calvada]

I think the people at NBC have realized - finally! - that trying to cover up the misdeeds of their own (Lauer) by trying to silence Farrow was a lousy way to run a news organization, and probably with a bunch of pressure from Rachel and others, issued the statement, and then gave her the go ahead to read it on her show, and have Farrow on for the interview.  It certainly helps that her ratings are at an all-time high, and I'm pretty sure if they tried to stop Rachel from truthful reporting on this, and fired her for doing so anyway, CNN would be on the phone to her in about 2 seconds with an offer to do a prime time show for them.  

I thought the way she did it, as M. Darcy describes, by giving NBC's side of it, then showing how appalling that was by giving Farrow's side of it, was just how she usually takes the members of the current administration apart,  It was done in the way she always operates - fairly, concisely, accurately, and clearly demonstrating the shitty management of NBC News.  I don't think she was saying she was conflicted about who to believe, TPTB at NBC News or Farrow. 

I wonder what Rachel would have done if NBC had not issued the statement, told her it was OK to read it on the air and do the interview with Farrow.  Would she have resigned if they continued to tell her she could not cover this?  Would she have been willing to give up the hour she has every day to address what she obviously feels is rampant corruption and crimes at the highest level?  If she resigned, could NBC have kept her off any other network for the length of her contract with them?

[meowmommy]

6 hours ago, Calvada said:

I'm pretty sure if they tried to stop Rachel from truthful reporting on this, and fired her for doing so anyway, CNN would be on the phone to her in about 2 seconds with an offer to do a prime time show for them.  

Funny, because I was going to come here to say that if NBC fired Rachel, Chris Cuomo would be out of a primetime slot faster than you could say Anderson Cooper.  Not to mention the optics and the backlash would have been horrendous.

Seems like Rachel's airing of the issue has opened the floodgates.  Here's WaPo today:

Quote

On Friday, the call for NBC to come clean on the Weinstein episode came from inside the house. In an extraordinary segment on her MSNBC show, Rachel Maddow urged NBC News to undertake an independent investigation of the network’s conduct.

“The allegations about the behavior of Harvey Weinstein and Matt Lauer are gut-wrenching,” said Maddow, MSNBC’s biggest star and the second, after MSNBC host Chris Hayes, to call out her bosses on an NBC-owned platform.

What's really interesting is that WaPo says the Farrow interview was booked weeks in advance, and so the announcement by NBC releasing their employees from speaking out was actually an effort to get out in front of what they expected Rachel to do.  Chris's comments were a ripple, but Rachel's comments are a tidal wave.

[meowmommy]

Damn, I've been doing it all wrong.  I should have paid this yahoo $378 for certification as a political scientist, instead of wasting four years earning a BA in poli sci.  And Rachel really pissed away her time, getting a Ph.D!

I was just picturing ScoobieDoobs having apoplexy at so much 45 footage, including the China montage.

Edited October 29, 2019 by meowmommy

[M. Darcy]

I've never seen Ambassador McFaul so angry before (do you still call them Ambassador after they retired??).  IMO, rightfully so.  He tweeted about it later  (but I think he had nothing to justify about it). 

Edited October 30, 2019 by M. Darcy

[meowmommy]

2 hours ago, M. Darcy said:

I've never seen Ambassador McFaul so angry before (do you still call them Ambassador after they retired??). 

I got a sense that he was so grateful to Rachel for giving him a chance to vent out loud!

This page has more information than you'd ever want to know about how to address an Ambassador.  Looks like the short answer is, yes, you do still call them Ambassador.

Quote

Any retired or former ambassador is addressed on the envelope, or in the address block of the letter, in the standard style used for addressing high US officials:
            The Honorable (Full name)
            (Address)
     And, in the salutation or conversation he/she would be addressed as:
            Dear Ambassador (Surname),
     The difference between ambassadors will arise when you introduce them, describe them, give their title, or identify them in writing.

[izabella]

On 10/29/2019 at 12:57 AM, meowmommy said:

Damn, I've been doing it all wrong.  I should have paid this yahoo $378 for certification as a political scientist, instead of wasting four years earning a BA in poli sci.  And Rachel really pissed away her time, getting a Ph.D!

If Rachel were on Fox Entertainment, her show would be called The Dr. Maddow show.

[freddi]

I love it when Rachel reads punctuation out loud.  Tonight it was “questionmark, QuestionMark, QUESTIONMARK?”  “Those are very pregnant question marks!” 

[ScoobieDoobs]

Loved that Rachel ended her show with Cuomo's awesome tweet.  Yeah, Rach, if Trump thinks he's avoiding something by changing his residence to FL then his logic is "bonkers".  Not sure why Rach seemed a bit skittish after she said that, but she sounded 100% right to me.

Edited November 2, 2019 by ScoobieDoobs

[M. Darcy]

That first story Rachel did.  WTF Missouri??!!!  That shit should be the top news story on every network but I think Rachel seems to be the only one covering it.  Tracking women's periods...is so...I can't even think of word to use.  Its beyond creepy.  And of course, that isn't the worst thing that they were doing to women.

Edited November 1, 2019 by M. Darcy

[izabella]

1 hour ago, M. Darcy said:

Tracking women's periods...is so...I can't even think of word to use.  Its beyond creepy. 

The words I use are unconscionable and unacceptable.  It should be illegal.  It seems it would be a HIPAA violation to have that medical information in a politician's spreadsheet.  It's a violation, an abuse of power, and an abuse of women, like everything else about the Missouri attempts to force women into extra pelvic exams and to make abortion inaccessible and illegal, despite Roe. 

[suomi]

WTF MIssouri, indeed.

When I was in high school in the '60s, the gym teacher tracked periods. Every student had a number that was assigned in alphabetical order by last name. As we stepped out of the actual shower room and into the foot bath filled with freezing cold gray jello, the teacher stood there with a clipboard and barked "Number" at us real loud before we could even say it. When you were menstruating you kept your panties on in the shower and added the word "dot" to your assigned number when she barked for it.

Those who hadn't started menstruating by age 15 or 16 (like me) were teased mercilessly because, between barking sessions, the shower clipboard hung where everyone could see the monthly sheets for all seven classes, every day. The varsity jocks thought it was a riot to sit in the main hallway and loudly and ostentatiously offer Kotex to those who didn't yet need them. "Somebody oughta get some of this one while she's still safe." Fun, fun.

Some girls who got pregnant weren't sharp enough or dishonest enough to say "dot" when they weren't dotting and just by looking at the shower sheet everyone knew who would soon be disappearing from the student body. And of course no one was checking on the sex lives of the guys. I was among the few who knew that our head cheerleader was 7 months along at graduation and got away with it because she had the dot thing down.

OK, maybe students don't have any rights - but now grown ass women don't either? Sometimes the news makes you want to throw back your head and howl at the cruelty and unfairness everywhere you look. 

[izabella]

2 minutes ago, suomi said:

When I was in high school in the '60s, the gym teacher tracked periods.

WTF?  WHY???

[meowmommy]

9 minutes ago, suomi said:

When I was in high school in the '60s, the gym teacher tracked periods. Every student had a number that was assigned in alphabetical order by last name.

Holy shit.  I thought my (graduated 1974) gym class experiences were horrible, but you win (win?).

[suomi]

10 minutes ago, izabella said:

WTF?  WHY???

Because Big Brother Sister was watching, and waiting and panting to see who she could drag into the counselor's office. There were no options except expulsion for pregnant girls, there was no alternative school in those days. But like I said, The Guys Were Untouchable! If you dated one guy your entire career and came up pregnant you were expelled and he was still Da Man, Prom King, MVP and all that shit. Our band didn't have uniforms but there was a fucking nice travel bus for the football, basketball and baseball teams. 

Our grades 9-12 high school in our population 6000 town had only 400 students. Imagine what they would've done for the boys if they had some real bucks to spend! Imagine what Rach could do with a story like that today - because for sure bullshit like that still goes on in lots of small towns (in the South, no doubt) but nobody talks about it. I remain convinced of that. 

[Quilt Fairy]

4 hours ago, suomi said:

When I was in high school in the '60s, the gym teacher tracked periods.

Another 60's high schooler here.  My gym teacher tracked our periods for swimming class in my sophomore year.  We were allowed to sit out one week a month when we had our period.  

Back to the show, the situation in Missouri horrifies me so much that I need to change channels when she's talking about it.  Republicans say they want to get government out of our lives, but they have no problem regulating women's vaginas. 

[ahisma]

I don’t blame Rachel a bit for forgetting to poof Tim Ryan until now. Beto has WAY more visibility. (Did you know Michael Bennet is still in the race? Apparently he is—I couldn’t have told you on a bet.)

[tres bien]

Rachel's reporting of David Ignatius' article was very interesting. I hope it gets more attention. 

I wish she would have had him on to talk about it. 

[meowmommy]

2 hours ago, tres bien said:

Rachel's reporting of David Ignatius' article was very interesting. I hope it gets more attention. 

I wish she would have had him on to talk about it. 

I think he works for CNN, so maybe he can't, by contract.

11 hours ago, ahisma said:

I don’t blame Rachel a bit for forgetting to poof Tim Ryan until now. Beto has WAY more visibility.

I'm such a damn nerd that I did notice when Tim Ryan dropped out that Rachel didn't poof him.  What's odd is that her staff didn't notice.  Although it's just more likely that they noticed but didn't give a shit.

[tres bien]

2 hours ago, meowmommy said:

I think he works for CNN, so maybe he can't, by contract.

I'm such a damn nerd that I did notice when Tim Ryan dropped out that Rachel didn't poof him.  What's odd is that her staff didn't notice.  Although it's just more likely that they noticed but didn't give a shit.

The reason I thought Ignatius being on with Rachel would've been an easy get is that he's a regular on Morning Joe. But maybe he doesn't want anymore television exposure .

Edited November 2, 2019 by tres bien

[izabella]

2 hours ago, meowmommy said:

I think he works for CNN, so maybe he can't, by contract.

I'm such a damn nerd that I did notice when Tim Ryan dropped out that Rachel didn't poof him.  What's odd is that her staff didn't notice.  Although it's just more likely that they noticed but didn't give a shit.

The election cycles last so freaking long now, that it's hard to keep up.  Rachel mentioned how other countries only have 6 weeks for elections and how she wishes we had that.  I do too!  So sick of campaigns that last for years.  But we'll never change because there is so much money to be made on endless advertising, endless campaign events and news analysis...endless amounts of money.  It's an industry now, and that doesn't even count the donations to candidates.

[gatopretoNYC]

Fantastic show last night.

[ahisma]

10 hours ago, izabella said:

The election cycles last so freaking long now, that it's hard to keep up.  Rachel mentioned how other countries only have 6 weeks for elections and how she wishes we had that.  I do too!  So sick of campaigns that last for years.

I think there has to be a happy medium. I agree it’s too long right now, but for a country as geographically big as the US and since we’re not in a parliamentary system, 6 weeks is too short. There has to be time for the candidates to get out among the people and prove their ability to connect, and there has to be time for journalists to really be able to dive into their backgrounds. Think of how many “obvious front runners” have ended up not being the pick, in the end. 3-4 months for primaries and 3-4 months for the general, maybe? 

As it stands now, I fully agree with Rachel’s insistence on not talking about Presidential elections until two years out. It’s like holding out on Christmas until after Halloween, even if other people break the norms.

[meowmommy]

I do not understand Rachel's statement regarding 45 and the Paris climate accord.  Even assuming that a Democrat elected next year would immediately try to rejoin the accord, actions taken now that go into effect the day after the election would not be undone on November 4 by the election on November 3.  The inauguration isn't until January 20.  What am I missing?

[meowmommy]

Just when I was thinking Eric Swalwell looked a lot more relaxed and natural since he stopped being a robotic presidential candidate, Rachel basically said the same thing.

Wondering what was in her planned program, including the A block, that got bumped for election coverage.  It's not like nothing else happened today.

[freddi]

Wow, Rachel came back live for the repeat hour of her show.  Glad she got to report the Kentucky result and most of the Virginia shift on her first hour.  She was way overdue for happier news than the escapades of Lev and Igor.  

Kornacki is less frantic than usual, but can they get him better technology than his finger drawings on the boards?  

[freddi]

4 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

Wondering what was in her planned program, including the A block, that got bumped for election coverage.  It's not like nothing else happened today.

Well, in her “new” second hour, she is covering Brexit.  I have a feeling they recorded this after her show ended, so they could mix in a Rachel block with Kornacki updates.  It was weird to hear him say “Rachel will be back in a minute “ when they broke for commercials after ten minutes. It has the feel of a patched-together episode.  I’m sure he will step in with another election update soon.  

[izabella]

6 minutes ago, freddi said:

Well, in her “new” second hour, she is covering Brexit.

She reported on a different aspect of Brexit tonight.  The British intelligence agencies did an investigation into how the Brexit vote happened and whether Russians influenced that vote and how, and looked into whether Russia had infiltrated their institutions via money, etc.  They completed their investigation and prepared a report which was to be made public.  Boris Johnson, however, has refused to release the report until after their election, which is in December.    The Parliament is objecting and are asking what Johnson is trying to hide, like maybe his involvement with Russia/Brexit.

She also had a segment on Sondland's testimony/amended testimony which was released today. 

[freddi]

7 minutes ago, izabella said:

She also had a segment on Sondland's testimony/amended testimony which was released today. 

In the second hour, I think?  I don’t recall hearing this in her first hour.  Also just noticed that the “Live” indicator is not visible, so I’m staying with the theory that she recorded this after she finished the first hour. 

Edited November 6, 2019 by freddi

[izabella]

Yes, the second hour.  She was just covering Sondland's testimony, and that Lindsey Graham said he won't be reading the transcript.

[freddi]

Ah, now they patched in the Swalwell interview from the first hour. 

[possibilities]

Damn, I'd have liked to see that. I watched the first hour, and missed the 2nd, which was apparently where all the interesting stuff was.

I know they need to do live election coverage, but it does mean a lot of other things get bumped off the radar.

[freddi]

Boy, that reversal of student loan forgiveness for students lured by for-profit colleges just set up to collect federal aid:  a new kind of disgusting.  I knew about this previously, but not that DeVos had allowed the reversal of loan forgiveness to continue.  Wonderful that she ran afoul of a judge who was willing to communicate his willingness to incarcerate her.

In the William Taylor testimony segment, Rachel's backdrop was a dramatic image of the ceiling of the dome of the Rotunda in the Capitol.  The painting is the "Apotheosis of Washington," circling the interior of the top of the dome.  I don't think I have seen that on her show previously.  

[meowmommy]

1 hour ago, freddi said:

Wonderful that she ran afoul of a judge who was willing to communicate his willingness to incarcerate her.

She, not he, ultimately imposed just a slap on the wrist.  The big $100,000 fine (which gets paid by the taxpayers, not by the fabulously wealthy Secretary of Education and not by the offending "schools") which is supposed to be used to compensate 16,000 affected students works out to a whopping $6.25 per student.  The twist with the crazy-ass judicial nominee today is just the cherry on the sundae.  When someone said they love the poorly educated, they meant it.

2 hours ago, freddi said:

The painting is the "Apotheosis of Washington," circling the interior of the top of the dome.

Did not know that.  Thanks.

[BabyVegas]

16 hours ago, freddi said:

Boy, that reversal of student loan forgiveness for students lured by for-profit colleges just set up to collect federal aid:  a new kind of disgusting.  I knew about this previously, but not that DeVos had allowed the reversal of loan forgiveness to continue. 

Betsy DeVos has a shaky-as-hell record here. She and her family had invested in a company that collects student loan debt. She was required to divest of her interest in that company within 90 days of her confirmation as Secretary of Education, but given the level of corruption in the Trump admin, I would be fully unsurprised if she was still benefitting from this rule change. 

[freddi]

I love Rachel, but that was a very lazy show.  I had seen many excerpts before her "scoop," and even if it had been a "scoop", reading long passages would still have been overkill.  It's not like this is the only source we have for this material.  I eventually watched two other shows, checking in periodically.  Still more reading out loud.  The last moment was interesting, with the newest resignation.  I assume she is off on Monday. 

Edited November 9, 2019 by freddi

[meowmommy]

1 hour ago, freddi said:

I had seen many excerpts before her "scoop," and even if it had been a "scoop", reading long passages would still have been overkill.

Exactly.  NYT and WaPo, among others, had not only already excerpted it, but reviewed it, before Rachel went on the air.  Disconcerting to hear her call it a scoop.

Sometimes I think she assumes her audience lives in a news vacuum until her hour.  Maybe some of them get all their information from TRMS, but it's more likely that most of them don't.  I am rarely (not never) surprised by anything she reports during her hour.

[teddysmom]

I have to laugh at her thinking "Lodestar" could mean Pence is "Anonymous".   How did he get meetings with a publisher without it being on the official records?   

Hey Mike, there's a John from Simon & Schuster at the front gate, did your office forget to leave a day pass for him? 

[meowmommy]

41 minutes ago, teddysmom said:

I have to laugh at her thinking "Lodestar" could mean Pence is "Anonymous". 

It wasn't just her.  There was a lot of speculation at the time the original op-ed came out that Pence was Anonymous for that very reason, paired off against other speculation that the writer deliberately threw in that term to throw everyone off the scent.

Either way, while Anonymous has the right to be anonymous, everything that's been written just loses a lot of its power without a name attached to it.  And apparently, Anonymous had to water down a lot of important details in order to stay anonymous.

Anyway, I have to agree with freddi that Rachel read us way, way too much of the book.  I really was very surprised that Rachel spent any time at all on this book, as a juicy tell-all seems much more something that LOD would salivate over.

Edited November 8, 2019 by meowmommy

[teddysmom]

14 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

Anyway, I have to agree with freddi that Rachel read us way, way too much of the book.  I really was very surprised that Rachel spent any time at all on this book, as a juicy tell-all seems much more something that LOD would salivate over.

ITA.  I'm listening to the podcast, and it's kind of irritating how excited she is about stuff we all know. 

Quote from the book: He's erratic, he's cruel.  

Boy there's a scoop. 

[izabella]

I guess Rachel is susceptible to enjoying the juicy gossip on people that she covers every day.  Reporters love the "inside the West Wing" peeks and scoops.  I kinda wish she had saved that for after hours with her journalist friends rather than focusing her show on it, though. 

If Anonymous was so concerned, Anonymous could have walked his/her butt over to Adam Schiff's office and told the important things instead of releasing a tell-all that tells nothing we didn't already know about 45 from before the election.  White House enablers, thy name is Anonymous.  Except it isn't.  We know who all of you are.

This book is self-serving, a way to have relevance after 2020, try to retain some credibility instead of being persona non-grata, and maybe get a juicy Fox News contract.  Look at me, I was concerned and disturbed!

Edited November 8, 2019 by izabella