Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
saoirse

All Episodes Talk: TRMS 2019 Season

Recommended Posts

Way too much Stevens stuff for me.  I tuned out for the first 20 minutes or so till she finally got to covering the news of the day & the court transcript readings.

I know Rach is famous for the history lessons & the lectures & many luv that stuff, but it’s not for me.  I’m just done with that shit.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

After the chaos of the past week in the news, I was kind of grateful for her paying respect to Justice Stevens.    What an amazing life he led, and I'm afraid it may be a long time before we see his like again.

And he stayed sharp as a tack up to the end--I saw a print interview with him within the past couple of weeks.   This morning on CNN they aired an interview he did recently with John Berman that was just wonderful--he saw so many changes to the world in his lifetime and you could tell Berman was enjoying himself very much.

I know having to pull it together rattled Rachel a little but it was a little oasis of peace at the end of a crazy news day.   And I think it was Lawrence who had Neil Katyal on who clerked for him--and he gave a lovely tribute as well.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post

And Rachel was building on the impromptu tribute from Chris Hayes, who was on the air when the news became public.  His wife had clerked for Justice Stevens, and Chris had been at the famous 99th birthday party recently.  It was a very heartfelt tribute, and it felt right that Rachel held on to that mood and topic at the start of her show.

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post

Re: the Stevens coverage, it was nice to have a story about a good and decent person who did so much good for this country....as opposed to the men that Rachel was talking about last night. 

Edited by M. Darcy
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

I was so relieved that Rachel moved last night to “What is Trump distracting us from?” It feels like all news on all channels for the past five days has been pundits and Congressional interviews and “regular American” interviews asking “Is the President racist?” It's an important question, but when it’s wall-to-wall like that I've been frustrated that whatever else is going on isn't getting covered, and we should know Trump's playbook by now. 

The Epstein story had been big in the news before “the Tweet”  so no surprise that was one thing. I hadn't known more Cohen info was coming out, so very interested in that. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

Last night when Rachel said, SDNY you're ok, aren't you? You'd tell us if you weren't, wouldn't you? It brought on so much anxiety and feeling of defeat to me, I was inches from crying.

  • Like 4
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post

38 minutes ago, ahisma said:

It feels like all news on all channels for the past five days has been pundits and Congressional interviews and “regular American” interviews asking “Is the President racist?”

I have to admit I've been a little surprised by Rachel's coverage of this topic, given, as you say, that it's been covered ad infinitum by every news outlet, and also that her mantra is watch what he does, not what he says.

3 minutes ago, Bluelucy said:

Last night when Rachel said, SDNY you're ok, aren't you? You'd tell us if you weren't, wouldn't you? It brought on so much anxiety and feeling of defeat to me, I was inches from crying.

It does seem a little suspicious, doesn't it?  I hope Rachel hasn't pinned too much of her hopes on the materials that are being unsealed today.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
57 minutes ago, ahisma said:

I was so relieved that Rachel moved last night to “What is Trump distracting us from?” It feels like all news on all channels for the past five days has been pundits and Congressional interviews and “regular American” interviews asking “Is the President racist?” It's an important question, but when it’s wall-to-wall like that I've been frustrated that whatever else is going on isn't getting covered, and we should know Trump's playbook by now. 

The Epstein story had been big in the news before “the Tweet”  so no surprise that was one thing. I hadn't known more Cohen info was coming out, so very interested in that. 

I've been yelling this at my TV every time they do the whole is he a racist thing.  I'm so glad someone pointed out this is just a distraction and once again the Media took the bait

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

I'm sick and tired of the constant next big thing to drop. After 30 minutes last night, I looked at my TV and thought, Rachel, what does it matter?

Share this post


Link to post

Rachel has been the only anchor/reporter that I have seen reporting on the transfer of USDA scientists and staffers to Kansas City; I thought she would update once the decision date had passed.  I watch several MSNBC shows during the day and evening in the summer, and I have not seen this reported anywhere other than on Rachel's show.  Two-thirds of the affected employees declined to move; one-third plan to move.  

  • Like 11
  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post

Rachel got it right about him trying to distract with the latest horrible shit, but her dramatics about what happened today?  Nah, I knew that would be mostly predictable & have zero impact on Trump.  

Hold off on the dramatics, Rach & please STOP playing Trump clips!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Benson is near my neck of the woods and Grijalva is my Congressman, so it was a little surreal hearing that story get the A block treatment! Grijalva's roots are in environmental protection, particularly of the Sonoran Desert, so he is not going to let this slip. 

18 hours ago, freddi said:

Rachel has been the only anchor/reporter that I have seen reporting on the transfer of USDA scientists and staffers to Kansas City

Same. The way these federal workers are being muscled out of their jobs, now from two departments, is awful—this needs to be front page news.

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post

2 hours ago, ahisma said:

Benson is near my neck of the woods and Grijalva is my Congressman, so it was a little surreal hearing that story get the A block treatment! Grijalva's roots are in environmental protection, particularly of the Sonoran Desert, so he is not going to let this slip. 

Same. The way these federal workers are being muscled out of their jobs, now from two departments, is awful—this needs to be front page news.

So much is happening "under the radar" ,  that it's great to have someone like Rach reporting on what's going on as we're all being distracted. They( MSNBC ) all play the trump clips or pics constantly....like we  don't know what he looks like????

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, ahisma said:

Benson is near my neck of the woods and Grijalva is my Congressman, so it was a little surreal hearing that story get the A block treatment! Grijalva's roots are in environmental protection, particularly of the Sonoran Desert, so he is not going to let this slip. 

21 hours ago, freddi said:

I was losing my mind, because I know I'd heard this story already, but couldn't remember if Rachel had covered it or I'd seen it on CNN.  Must have been CNN.

I'm outside Phoenix, and I'm just trying to understand who the hell wants to live in a planned community near the Mexican border and nothing else.  It's about an hour from Tucson, so everyone would have a long commute, assuming there are even jobs for them.  Clearly the houses will be very expensive, and not only will the development require massive amounts of water, but a massive increase in infrastructure, including roads, schools, fire, police, medical, etc.  A town of 5,000 doesn't have the resources to support upwards of 100,000 new residents.  

Edited by meowmommy
  • Like 4
  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post

I was looking up the Arizona story as Rachel was telling it (it started so charmingly, and I knew it would take a dark turn sometime after the adorable choo-choo cursor), and basically, I saw almost everything she said at the CNN site.  

Who would move there?  Golfers, apparently!  The town seems eager to have the business.  

2 hours ago, meowmommy said:

I was losing my mind, because I know I'd heard this story already, but couldn't remember if Rachel had covered it or I'd seen it on CNN.  Must have been CNN.

I'm outside Phoenix, and I'm just trying to understand who the hell wants to live in a planned community near the Mexican border and nothing else.  It's about an hour from Tucson, so everyone would have a long commute, assuming there are even jobs for them.  Clearly the houses will be very expensive, and not only will the development require massive amounts of water, but a massive increase in infrastructure, including roads, schools, fire, police, medical, etc.  A town of 5,000 doesn't have the resources to support upwards of 100,000 new residents.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

So Rach confirmed she’s stuck on the Trump-admin-getting-rid-of-scientists story.  Awesome!  Keep your spotlight on it, Rach, cuz nobody else seems to be covering it.

Wow, Rachel seemed to have gotten such nothing answers from that congressman, who’s on one of the committees interviewing Mueller next week.  I thought — what a waste of time & why’d she have him there.  Not so fast.  It def wasn’t obvious, but she did zero in on him telling how they were going in extremely well-prepared & well-rehearsed.  Good to know that, at least.

Off to listen to the Lawfare podcast now.  Thanks for the tip, Rach.  I wanna be prepared for next week too!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Wow, Rachel seemed to have gotten such nothing answers from that congressman, who’s on one of the committees interviewing Mueller next week.

I think the congressman and everyone else are trying to hedge their bets, in case Mueller's response to every question is, read the report, dammit.  Nobody wants to get overly enthusiastic and have their hopes dashed.

5 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

So Rach confirmed she’s stuck on the Trump-admin-getting-rid-of-scientists story.  Awesome!  Keep your spotlight on it, Rach, cuz nobody else seems to be covering it.

If it were any other player causing a department to relocate, it wouldn't be so suspicious, but of course, it isn't, so it is.  Being abruptly transferred to a location not of one's choice was a very common occurrence in the 60s and 70s.  Being able to put one's foot down and refuse a transfer is a relatively modern concept.

Edited by meowmommy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

In the 1960s and 1970s it was a lot less common for relocating to mean having to find a new job for a partner. As women entered the workforce, moving became a much more complex disruption.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Hmmm, Stephen Miller's uncle is obviously very intelligent & seems like a gentleman.  OK, Rach, so you had an interesting guest like him . . . uh, so why didn't you ask him if he's deeply embarrassed to have this monster as his nephew & how did his family hatch this creep?  Nah, Rach is too nice to do that.  And the uncle looked genuinely embarrassed & ashamed to be related to that freak show.

While I usually (er, ALWAYS) hate clips from Fox, I actually appreciated the one Rach played of Shep Smith slaughtering Rossello.  That was good, and since I NEVER watch Fox, I wouldn't have otherwise seen it.  Thanks Rach, but please keep Fox clips to a minimum in the future -- along with ZERO Trump c;lips!

Edited by ScoobieDoobs
  • Like 5
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

It was a great first segment, with the address of Justice Kagan to the law clerks and others.  It was such a touching tribute.  

Then, off to the races with the DOJ admonition to Mueller.  Yeah, he’ll appreciate that. 

Edited by freddi
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Thanks Rach, but please keep Fox clips to minimum in the future-- along ZERO Trump c;lips!

Shep Smith is one of the good guys, although by definition, he's Fox's token good guy.  I don't mind Rachel featuring him in an amazing takedown of a sleaze.

Totally with you on the 45 clips.

1 hour ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

Hmmm, Stephen Miller's uncle is obviously very intelligent & seems like a gentleman.  OK, Rach, so you had an interesting guest like him . . . uh, so why didn't you ask him if he's deeply embarrassed to have this monster as his nephew & how did his family hatch this creep?

From his uncle's article:

Quote

I have watched with dismay and increasing horror as my nephew, an educated man who is well aware of his heritage, has become the architect of immigration policies that repudiate the very foundation of our family’s life in this country....

Acting for so long in the theater of right-wing politics, Stephen and Trump may have become numb to the resultant human tragedy and blind to the hypocrisy of their policy decisions.

1 hour ago, freddi said:

Then, off to the races with the admonition to Mueller.  Yeah, he’ll appreciate that. 

Seems like Rachel's being appropriately cautious, as it seems likely both sides are going to be at least somewhat disappointed in their expectations.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I meant the DOJ admonition, not Rachel’s, in case that was not clear. 🤭

20 minutes ago, meowmommy said:

Seems like Rachel's being appropriately cautious, as it seems likely both sides are going to be at least somewhat disappointed in their expectations.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, freddi said:

I meant the DOJ admonition, not Rachel’s, in case that was not clear. 🤭

Yeah, he doesn't seem like someone who caves to pressure.  I still think Rachel's smart to be cautious in her expectations.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I loved when the uncle said this is the story ALL of us should be telling. I wonder how someone from such an apparently smart and compassionate family winds up pure evil.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Me last night - wow, that family history's story is just like mine.  That is when and why my Mother's family immigrated to the United States - escaping Russia from the pogroms.  I wonder why she is telling that.  Then - wow, holy shit, she got Stephen Miller's uncle! 

So....me and Stephen Miller totally opposite.  I appreciate the fact that I am descended from immigrants and am grateful that the United States let them in and hope that others can benefit from the same.  Stephen Miller - we're closed - no more immigrants - screw others that are suffering like my relatives did. 

Edited by M. Darcy
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, possibilities said:

I wonder how someone from such an apparently smart and compassionate family winds up pure evil.

Is it for pure power that Miller has forgotten his roots? Kagan's address was wonderful. Too bad others can't manage to speak so eloquently without a teleprompter, at least I couldn't see one as she spoke. I'm a little nervous about the Mueller hearing tomorrow. The DOJ sure handed him a strict set of rules to abide by. But, he's a private citizen now.....can't  he just speak as openly as he wants to? And isn't he free to share the redacted parts of the report? 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, PennyPie18 said:

Is it for pure power that Miller has forgotten his roots? Kagan's address was wonderful. Too bad others can't manage to speak so eloquently without a teleprompter, at least I couldn't see one as she spoke. I'm a little nervous about the Mueller hearing tomorrow. The DOJ sure handed him a strict set of rules to abide by. But, he's a private citizen now.....can't  he just speak as openly as he wants to? And isn't he free to share the redacted parts of the report? 

There was an old clip of Miller on John Oliver's show before he joined Trump's administration. His attitude seemed no different then. 

Edited by Robert Lynch

Share this post


Link to post

TRMS is so smart not to have me as a writer, because my script for Rachel tonight would have wondered if Meuller or Republicans would show up in the T-shirts sold by Flynn's attorney.  So inappropriate. So hilarious.

In that clip of Comey, did anyone else think he is looking very polished and younger?  Tan and glowing skin and good clothes -- if he is using a stylist these days, good job.  

Rachel:  "We never have two people at a time on the show" -- which works well for her, but I'm glad she had that informed little panel this evening.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

The first 10 or so minutes tonight were very confusing. Just starting the show with a verdict of who knows what about who knows why, had me scratching my head.

But it leaves a big question. What is going to happen to Michael Flynn?

I was slightly surprised to see Jim Comey on Nicolle's show this afternoon. Sadly he always disappoints me. Sorry but I'm never going to get over his actions in 2016.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

Oh, I agree the opening segment was very confusing, and I was drafting a "huh?" post for this thread until she brought the pieces together, too late, as far as I was concerned.

And yes, I'm thinking Comey does not deserve a place of pride on Rachel's show.  But he was looking more spiffy than in past appearances. 

13 minutes ago, Bluelucy said:

The first 10 or so minutes tonight were very confusing. Just starting the show with a verdict of who knows what about who knows why, had me scratching my head.

But it leaves a big question. What is going to happen to Michael Flynn?

I was slightly surprised to see Jim Comey on Nicolle's show this afternoon. Sadly he always disappoints me. Sorry but I'm never going to get over his actions in 2016.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

13 minutes ago, Medicine Crow said:

Am I the only one who had to look up "taciturn"????

Did you find a picture of Calvin Coolidge when you did?!

  • Laugh 4

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Bluelucy said:

I was slightly surprised to see Jim Comey on Nicolle's show this afternoon. Sadly he always disappoints me. Sorry but I'm never going to get over his actions in 2016.

To her credit, Nicolle flat out asked him if he feels any responsibility for what has happened to the country as the result of the 2016 election.  To which he said, no.

1 hour ago, Medicine Crow said:

Am I the only one who had to look up "taciturn"????

Yes, but don't mind me, I'm a word junkie.  

2 hours ago, Bluelucy said:

The first 10 or so minutes tonight were very confusing. Just starting the show with a verdict of who knows what about who knows why, had me scratching my head.

I know Rachel's become addicted to reading transcripts, but there was not one goddamn thing in that transcript that she needed to read to us.  Just report the verdict and make your points from that.  She hinted that Flynn might now be screwed in a conundrum of his own making, but I'd like to have seen less transcript reading and more analysis of the potential significance of Judge Sullivan having held off sentencing Flynn all those months ago.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

Rachel said something last night that surprised me, because it was seemed a tactless remark about Mueller when she was talking about the second person, Zebley,  coming to be available at the table with Mueller—she asked “is it possible he’s not at 100% capacity and there’s a reason they feel he needs a second person there?”  That seemed quite a leap to me, but now that I’ve seen the first session, I wonder if she knew something about a problem that prompted her to ask that question.  

Edited by freddi
  • Like 6
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, freddi said:

she asked “is it possible he’s not at 100% capacity and there’s a reason they feel he needs a second person there?”  That seemed quite a leap to me, but now that I’ve seen the first session, I wonder if she knew something about a problem that prompted her to ask that question.

That stood out as really weird to me, too, but then tonight she talked about how Mueller acted older than his 74 years during his testimony, and she implied that some of his investigators should be called to testify now, since Muller didn't seem fully aware of what was going on. It's like she was teeing herself up last night for what would happen today, but how did she know?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Apparently, his age-related slowness (compared to his performance in the past) had been well known (not to me!), and by people Rachel has had on her show.  I only learned this later today, in other coverage and interviews (Frank Figluizzi) -- so she would have been in the loop.  Yes, I think she was teeing things up in her little panel discussion last night, knowing he would not be at 100%.  It really stuck out last night, not at all like Rachel's usual diplomacy.  But as I watched the committee testimony this morning, I kept thinking of what Rachel had said ahead of time: "maybe he is not at 100% capacity".  Yeah, she knew.  

6 minutes ago, Sesquipedalia said:

That stood out as really weird to me, too, but then tonight she talked about how Mueller acted older than his 74 years during his testimony, and she implied that some of his investigators should be called to testify now, since Muller didn't seem fully aware of what was going on. It's like she was teeing herself up last night for what would happen today, but how did she know?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I was struck by Rachel calling out Mueller for seeming "old".  Wow, that sounded so harsh & cruel to me -- and so out of character coming from the always super nicey-nice Rach!  I didn't get it & was really bothered by it.  First off, at 74, that doesn't make sense to blame his "slowness" on age.  BUT there could be something else going on which is much more specific -- like maybe the onset of Alzheimer's.

I never made any connection as to why she was pushing so hard, hard, hard on having his staffers there along with him.  Actually, it puzzled me why she was doing this.  So if Mueller is not at full capacity, I guess he really can't admit to it cuz the Repubs & Trump would heartlessly pounce on him?  So why didn't Rachel make this clear?  I was left confused.

Well, at least Rachel didn't play the same Trump clips everyone else on CNN & MSNBC were playing -- of Trump claiming "victory".  She did a great job of casually dismissing that garbage in a sentence.  And she was not at all pushing the same gotta-impeach-now agenda that everyone else on MSNBC & CNN seems to be pushing so hard on.

OK, so why has nobody else on TV, other than Rachel, discussed the guilty verdict of Bijan Kian?  I don't get it.  This is a big deal & yet it's covered by nobody except Rachel.  Why?  It has gotten some print coverage from The Times & Politico, but it seems to have gotten totally lost.  Keep your spotlight on Flynn, Rach!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

David Laufman was probably the best guest on any show (including CNN) that came on after Robert Mueller's testimony.

I hope Rachel keeps finding people like him and having them on. If only because he made me feel better. 

Thank you for showing the clip of Mark Warner. It just doesn't seem possible that this goes on every day and oh, it does.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, ScoobieDoobs said:

I was struck by Rachel calling out Mueller for seeming "old".  Wow, that sounded so harsh & cruel to me -- and so out of character coming from the always super nicey-nice Rach!  I didn't get it & was really bothered by it.  First off, at 74, that doesn't make sense to blame his "slowness" on age.  BUT there could be something else going on which is much more specific -- like maybe the onset of Alzheimer's.

I thought not only might there be some physical issue (although there are lots of other reasons for "slowness" and lots of other types of dementia than the dreaded Alzheimer's), but that he didn't want to appear because he might have been acting more as a figurehead in charge of the investigation, and that it was really Aaron Zebley and other lead prosecutors who were running the show and managing the details.  One of the Republicans yesterday asked him who wrote the letter to Barr, Mueller refused to answer, and the Republican nastily said, thought so, you didn't write it.  Nasty, but probably true.  And I wondered if Mueller didn't write his own report, but merely signed off on it, which is why he didn't recognize a lot of what was in it.  And why the Republicans were so radically opposed to having Zebley or anyone else as a witness, because they knew what to expect and didn't want Mueller to have any help.

Still, it was disconcerting and somewhat distressing to have Rachel call him out on his performance and his age so sharply.  It did seem out of character for her.

6 hours ago, freddi said:

Apparently, his age-related slowness (compared to his performance in the past) had been well known (not to me!), and by people Rachel has had on her show. 

No doubt Rachel is extremely well-sourced on most things Washington, and this would be no exception.  

Edited by meowmommy
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Our cable was out all day yesterday, so I had to listen to most of the hearing. Yes, it did sound, at times,  that Mueller was confused and really tired. But, despite that, he did make make it clear that trump was not exonerated, and that our elections were already being hacked. Jordan and McCarthy  were already claiming their guy was cleared. What's next???

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

I was happy that during the interview with Michael Bennett, Rachel did clarify that she had not meant to insinuate that Robert Mueller might have health issues. And Senator Bennett clearly pointed out that Mueller had been basically brought in to Congress kicking and screaming.

As for election security vs McConnell. I have nothing to say that would be acceptable on this board. 😣

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

3 hours ago, car54 said:

No Rachel tonight.....Ari Melber is in for her.

I muted until I saw Joyce Vance was talking.  She is such a good analyst, so focused on the facts and not on the drama.  Chuck Rosenberg is similar in style.  Joyce is done, so muting again. 

You earned a break, Rachel! 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I was so surprised to see Ari, since there was a substitute host for his own show tonight! I think that having him anchor Rachel's show instead of his own makes me wonder if they are getting ready to make some changes, though I'm not really sure what.

Edited by possibilities

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, possibilities said:

I was so surprised to see Ari, since there was a substitute host for his own show tonight! I think that having him anchor Rachel's show instead of his own makes me wonder if they are getting ready to make some changes, though I'm not really sure what.

This did not surprise me -- When Nicolle Wallace subs for Brian Williams, she has a sub on her own afternoon show.  Joy seems to be the most frequent sub for Rachel, then Ali Velshi -- but Ari has subbed for Rachel in the past.  And Joy was subbing for Lawrence tonight!  I have notice the channel always keeps one of the regular hosts on the air if two are away in the evening.  So, if Rachel and Lawrence are off, Chris will be on (except for major holidays, when it is either subs or clip shows).  

What was funny is that the woman who subbed for Ari today had also subbed for Ali Velshi earlier, and she looked a little fried, and signed off on her first show saying, "But I'll be back for Ari Melber in three hours, so you are not rid of me yet.  It's a little crazy today.  <then catches herself> But I'm really, really enjoying this!"  (She did not look like she was enjoying herself.)   Actually, Nicolle Wallace also was off today.  Long week for everyone, and subs galore!  

  • Like 1
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

They are down 1 sub----I think normally they'd have Ali Velshi and Joy to help and Ali is on vacation.     Thank god they don't put Kornaki on either Lawrence or Rachel usually.

Ali seems to always be the go-to for prime time subs--but I really like that Yasmin is getting some more daytime exposure-----she DID have a long day---she does the pre-Morning Joe show then she did mid-day and then went on to do The Beat.     

I'm really enjoying her--she is  good interviewer.     I'll be interested to hear what Ali did this year--last year he went somewhere in asia to do volunteer work when he was off.

I think it's going to be a tough year so I encourage Rachel to get her long weekends when she can.    A little fishing is good therapy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, car54 said:

I'm really enjoying her--she is  good interviewer. 

At first I didn't like her....she seemed to lack any personality or warmth. Now, I do enjoy watching her,  and I hope she gets more prime time instead of the early (too early) show she has now. I am so sad about the nasty remarks being made about Mueller. He's a hero. He suffered injuries during Vietnam and has led an honorable life. Joyce and Chuck...I always find their interviews enjoyable, and educational, to watch.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Oh yeah, but they're just getting warmed up.   

Rachel's going to need to pace herself.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
saoirse

Reminder; keep discussion to the current episodes of Rachel's show. Failure to follow the forum guidelines can result in removed posts and warnings being doled out. In some cases, suspensions and even banning may occur. Thank you. 

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size